I mean, I *love* Portal. It was the first game in a decade that got me excited about gaming again. But art? Please. It has no deeper meaning, evokes no emotion, teaches no lesson. It provides neither insight nor reflection. It certainly isn't abstractly beautiful or otherwise uniquely aesthetically pleasing (well, any more so than an average, technically competent game).
What it does do is entertain, and in a unique, interesting way. It's incredibly fun. Hilarious, clever, and a bit chilling at times. But is it art? I sure don't think so.
Wow, that is entirely the wrong breakdown, here. The controller should *never* perform presentation activities. Ever. What happens if you decide you want to change to a vector-based display? Or make it digital? Or, heck, just change the colours?
No, the GP was right. Full MVC is overkill, here, as there's no use interaction, and thus no controller necessary. OTOH, a model would certainly have it's uses (transmuting UTC to time zones, breaking time down to YMDhms components, etc, could all be done in the model). But the vast bulk of any "render-heavy" application is obviously gonna be in the view.
No trolling at all, although perhaps I should have spoken differently. "Most of the successful _mandatory_ whitelists..."
And nothing about the concept of the application whitelist requires the list be mandatory. All it needs to do is put a barrier in the way that the user must jump over before they can opt out (for example, agreeing to void their warranty or limit their support contract).
Signed packages or drivers are one thing if there's an easy way to install unsigned packages or drivers. Ubuntu or Microsoft is giving something an endorsement. Nothing more.
No, what they're actively saying is "these things are trusted, you can use them safely". Particularly in the case of Microsoft signing drivers, that's far more than an endorsement, as it comes with a guarantee of safety. Which is, of course, the entire point of a whitelist to begin with.
But the iPhone, when used as Apple intends, forces average users to limit themselves to the whitelist. Apple has gone beyond this, and is acting as the Governor of their device.
Yes, congratulations, you've just reiterated a good part of my original post. Well done.
The part you left out is that Apple's system is *not* necessarily what whitelisting proponents intended, and so the OP's post, I think, draws a contradiction where one doesn't exist. Rather, Apple's system goes much farther than simply providing security guarantees on whitelisted apps, and is instead being used as a tool for limiting competition.
Not at all. Most of the more successful whitelists in history have been the product of either Government or Organized Religion.
Don't be an idiot. We're talking about a technical whitelist. It's no different than Ubuntu signing their packages, or Microsoft signing drivers. The only difference between those cases and Apple's app store is that Ubuntu and Microsoft let the user opt out.
And both get modded +5 insightful. In this case, Apple created the Whitelist that all the security people say we need. And applied it to a whole platform. They apparently do code reviews, and enforce proper usage of the API.
Yes, *but*, I think it's natural to assume that anyone advocating a "whitelist" approach to applications would simultaneously advocate an option to voluntarily opt out of that process.
And that's ignoring the fact that one of the big problems with, say, Apple's app store isn't necessarily that Apple is filtering the content, but that it's filtering it simply to benefit itself, by using the process as a cudgel to eliminate competing products. ie, security has nothing to do with it. It's all about protectionism. Additionally, it's clear the review process is largely arbitrary, which means seemingly legitimate apps can't even get through the process.
Of course, that's entirely their choice, it's their system, and the customers, by buying one of their devices, opt in to that system (after all, it's not like this is a big secret). But I think it obvious that advocates of a whitelist-based approach to application security didn't have in mind the approach Apple has taken with their system.
IE, Safari, and Chrome and Opera all claim to be Mozilla implementations.
ROFL! Wow, you honestly have absolutely *no idea* how modern web browsers came about, do you?
Christ, the fact that you think "Mozilla" in a user agent string means they're trying to mimic modern Firefox demonstrates just how laughably ignorant you must be.
Honestly, that must be one of the funnier things I've read in some time. Well done!
Ultimately, you're on the losing end of this debate. Open video is where it's at.
No. It's really not. Theora looks worse, requires more bits, doesn't yet have hardware acceleration (though that may be changing soon, we'll see), streams poorly (though that's Ogg's fault)... it's *only* advantage is on the patent issue, and the content providers have already paid for their licenses, and the users simply don't give a shit.
Meanwhile, Google, Vimeo, and basically every other major content provider has already standardized on H.264, largely because it's backwards compatible with their existing Flash-based players while also working in the video element.
No, Theora lost before the race ever began. The only question now, is, will Firefox finally relent before HTML5 really starts to make it big, and Firefox is left in the dust by browsers run by people who aren't blind ideologues with delusions of grandeur.
Aside from all the places that memory is shared between processes, theres no sharing between processes... yea, I totally get you...
That's exactly right. I pointed out all the places. *All of them*. And there's *two*: shared, read-only executable pages, and the heaps of children created by COW-enabled forks. That's it. That's all.
So any new technology for memory de-duping is impressive because, traditionally, it just ain't done. Which directly contradicts the content of your original post.
What year do you live in? Solaris _9_ had COW and multiple page size support, over half a decade ago.
*snicker* I like how you phrased that as "half a decade ago"... "five years ago" sounds far less impressive, when you consider how industrial strength Solaris has traditionally been considered.:) That said, I fully concede my information is probably out-of-date. Glad to see Solaris finally moved into the 21st century!
Besides, it wasn't a criticism of Solaris (the only reason I came across the factoid at all was because I was doing work with very large numbers of processes on a single box, and Linux massively outperformed Solaris at the time, partly because of Linux's COW semantics for forked processes). My point was simply that memory sharing is the exception rather than the rule for OSes, in that there is a very limited scope in which it applies.
The issue is that Mozilla cannot legally integrate an H264 codec into their code base and remain GPL-compliant.
Sorry, no, that's just false, legally and technically.
All Firefox needs to do is integrate with a *generic* video backend. That backend can then provide H.264 support, and Firefox will be legally in the clear. It's just that simple.
Firefox simply chooses not to do this. They've tried to invent a bunch of technical reasons why they don't want to, but alas, they're weak at best. No, the Firefox devs dug their heels in for ideological reasons early, and continue to dig their heels in because they're stubborn and don't give a crap about their users (as an aside, they also *massively* overestimate the impact they can have on the web, hilariously of the belief that Firefox making a stand will somehow stem the tide of H.264 video on the web... it'd be funny if it weren't so sad).
The issue is that Mozilla cannot legally integrate an H264 codec into their code base and remain GPL-compliant.
Good, they shouldn't be doing that in the first place.
Because Google decided to just package H.264 with Chrome, as they're apparently unconcerned about patents. Firefox is concerned, so they need another approach.
And what of the 60% of Windows users with no H.264 support in the OS?
They, uh, install the codec?
And what of other desktop platforms and mobile platforms?
Fennec is *already* moving to gstreamer for video support. Firefox just decided not to backport the implementation.
Your approach is a poor solution which limits cross platform deployment,
Bull. Shit. Gstreamer is already cross-platform. For those freak platforms with no gstreamer or DirectShow support, they can just use the existing Theora implementation.
Okaaay.. so you're suggesting that video codecs are somehow more secure that image codecs?
Yeah, that's exactly what I said.
Or maybe I didn't say that at all, but you apparently felt like knocking down a strawman for kicks.
So, allow me to elucidate: All I said was that the OP pointed to an article about image codecs. We have no idea what MS will do when it comes to the video element. Though I'll be very surprised if they don't use DirectShow as the decoder backend (though they may choose to limit the codecs they expose through the video element).
Microsoft doesn't even support WMV videos in IE9.
Well goodie for them. But I'll bet you they're using DirectShow or something similar, rather than building an entire new decoding pipeline specifically for IE. Why? Because they aren't fucking idiots.
If your OS isn't sharing duplicate memory blocks already, you're using a shitty OS. (Linux already shares dup read only blocks for many things, like most modern OSes).
Umm, no.
Most modern OSes share memory for executable images and shared libraries. In addition, some OSes, such as Linux, support copy-on-write semantics for memory pages in child processes created with fork (note, Solaris is an example of an OS that *doesn't* do this).
Aside from that, there is no automated sharing of memory between processes. Frankly, I have no idea where you got the idea there was.
I'm not implying anything. I'm *saying* that defenders of Mozilla's ridiculous stance have tried to claim:
1) Mozilla simply *can't* support H.264 for legal reasons. This is false, as there is no need for Mozilla to ship any codecs. 2) Mozilla simply *can't* support H.264 using OS-provided codecs because it's, like, hard and stuff. This is just BS. 3) Mozilla simply *can't* support H.264 using OS-provided codecs because of, like, security and stuff. As if Mozilla packaging it's own multimedia framework is suddenly so much better, and it's much wiser to not take advantage of OS-provided services that are regularly vetted and patched.
And now Mozilla simply *can't* support H.264 because then Firefox would behave differently on different platforms. As if it doesn't do so already.
In short, I'm saying, not implying, flat out stating, the people defending Mozilla's ridiculous position (either Mozilla staff themselves, or Mozilla fanbois) are now scraping around at the bottom of the barrel to come up with excuses to support their stance, instead of just admitting that the original choice was purely ideological, and their current stance is essentially an unwillingness to simply admit they were wrong.
1/ they will need to have codec support for theora (not necessarily installed);
User problem.
2/ the H.264 codec is only available on Windows 7 and later, and they cannot legally ship a H.264 codec for XP/Vista
User problem.
3/ they need to ensure that the DirectShow output works with the layers/svg/smil infrastructure as well as DirectWrite/Direct2D on Windows 7 -- e.g. does having a rotating, scaling video in a smil/svg file work;
Yup, it's a technical challenge. But don't tell me it's a blocker, as other browsers are already using this approach.
4/ they need to ensure that the audio output works well with other audio content (e.g. playing a and object at the same time);
See above. And this one's far easier (what audio output framework doesn't support hardware mixing multiple output streams in this day and age?).
5/ they would have to work around/live with any issues in the use of DirectShow/framework.
Yup, they sure do.
In addition, you also need a multimedia layer in the browser to support all of the multimedia frameworks,
You mean kinda like how they already wrap the platform-specific GUI libraries, rendering, etc, etc?
Sorry, *none* of these issues is a blocker. Not a single one. People are claiming Firefox *can't* support H.264, either for baseless legal reasons, or dubious technical reasons. But the reality is that Mozilla could add support if they wanted to. They *choose* not to because they took an ideological stance early, and now they don't want to back down, even if their choice is not in the best interests of their userbase.
Maybe you should read the comment again carefully. If video codec support can be treated as an "OS supplied service", why won't IE9 support all OS supplied codecs?
They *are* using OS supplied codecs, they're just choosing to limit the options available to reduce the security footprint. Firefox could do exactly the same thing.
Meanwhile, the MS statement was about image codecs. The OP was speculating they would do the same for video codecs, without any actual evidence to back that claim.
They only way they can do as you suggest is by severely compromising Firefox.
Utter garbage. Firefox is *already* subject to any bugs in the underlying OS on an incredibly wide range of issues. Hell, just a few years back, Firefox was compromised thanks to an image rendering bug in GDI on Windows. So, what, *now* they've suddenly decided they're going to reimplement OS-supplied services for fear of security issues? Please.
On the bright side, at least the Mozilla devs *tried* to invent a technical excuse for not supporting H.264, now that people have realized there are no legal barriers to doing so. Of course, it's a stupid, irrelevant, indefensible technical excuse. But, hey, kudos for trying, guys.
That sounds like the worst possible solution, because then you'd have Firefox working differently on different platforms.
Oh please, I can't believe this bullshit. All you need to do is put up a little box that says "Sorry, you don't have that codec installed. Go install it", just like they already do for plugins.
Honestly, this must be the worst excuse yet. The Mozilla defenders sure seem to be getting desperate...
I'll admit that Theora isn't the greatest video codec. But it's been explained many times that Mozilla simply can't use MPEG-4 AVC/h.264 because of the patents involved.
And has been explained many times before, that's complete, utter bullshit.
All Firefox needs to do is use a generic video decoding pipeline for it's backend. GStreamer and DirectShow come to mind (interesting sidebar, they're *already doing this with Fennec*, they just refuse to backport the changes to Firefox for idiotic political reasons). Then, Firefox can immediately use *any* codec those pipelines support, and given the video tag is supposed to be codec agnostic, that's a good thing, as it gives the web developer a choice of a wide variety of codecs to target. And if the user happens to have installed an h264 codec for one of those pipelines, then voila, Firefox immediately gets H.264 support without ever shipping any patented code.
Honestly, how is the hard to understand? The simple fact is, there are *no technical or legal arguments for not supporting H.264*. None. Zero. Nada. The only reason to refuse is for political or ideological reasons.
You are changing your terms. you said "no negative health effects" and "completely harmless" the ONLY point I am trying to make is there is no such thing.
Bah, that's just stupid. Water, in sufficient quantities, has negative health effects (in that it can kill you). I *specifically* referred to "long-term negative health effects" (go back and re-read my post where I listed those drugs).
My original point was this (quoted): "Honestly, *who cares* if these people are addicted to some drug, so long as the drug itself causes no negative health effects?".
Obviously that statement should be interpreted to mean *long-term* health effects, as those are the effects one should be concerned about vis a vis addiction. And if a drug has no said effects (such as nicotine), I repeat, who gives a shit if someone is addicted to it?
All I am trying to do is point out there is no such thing as a free lunch. Every action has a consequence.
And I'm saying that's a lie. THC, as just one example, has never had any negative health effects connected with it. Any claimed effects are either correlation studies (such as the one you cite) and do not actually prove causation, or are deeply flawed.
Hell, I would wager the reason THC is demonized is specifically *because* it has no negative side-effects. At least with booze, those who would push their morality on others can rationalize alcohol consumption away because users are "punished" for their abuse. THC has no such consequences.
All these yahoos seem to forget that they don't live in a bubble. We live in a society where our actions effect each other. When it comes to addictions, they need to be measured in their ill effects. Every drug has a negative health effect from Asprin, to Alchohol, to Caffine.
What, have you just chosen to conveniently forget that other thread? I already pointed out three drugs that have no known, long-term "ill effects". Caffeine is actually a good example of a fourth.
Honestly, what is it with you and this assumption that all drugs *must* have a negative side-effect, given the numerous examples to the contrary?
Morphine: outside of the dizziness, headaches, and death from overdose...not much, it is actually a pretty safe drug, hard to overdose on and is usually very well controlled.... Oxycodone...death is a factor, especially when someone is addicted, same as Morphine.
So you agree with me, neither of these drugs has any known negative, long-term health effects, and therefore a well-managed addiction is largely harmless.
Weird, since your post said exactly the opposite. So either you lied before, or you had a knee-jerk reaction based on the prevailing belief that these drugs must be bad simply because they're addictive. How very illustrative.
Nicotine..oh where do we start, here is an abstract:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9864303 for one small negative health effect...not to mention possible death from overdose.
Umm, what? It's well known that Nicotine shouldn't be used during pregnancy, something which is true of *many* drugs. I'm obviously referring to long-term negative side-effects experienced by the *user*.
A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and schizophrenia.
Well of course there's an association. You'd almost certainly see the same association with those illnesses and alcohol (among other drugs). Why? Because people who have anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, or schizophrenia, are likely to self-medicate.
Or, to break out the classic Slashdot trope: Correlation != causation. Particularly in this case.
Name one drug that causes no negative health effects.
Well, to name a few: nicotine, morphine, oxycodone... heck, I could probably go on. None of these drugs have any known negative, long-term health effects associated with them (though some have short-term side-effects, such as constipation, mood swings, etc). The only danger associated with them is dependence.
But, again, the problem is people don't like the idea of addiction maintenance, because, apparently, addiction is bad simply because it's bad, even if it's well managed and has no impact on the addict's day-to-day life.
Slashdot Mirror
Portal, as any other video game is art.
It is? Why?
I mean, I *love* Portal. It was the first game in a decade that got me excited about gaming again. But art? Please. It has no deeper meaning, evokes no emotion, teaches no lesson. It provides neither insight nor reflection. It certainly isn't abstractly beautiful or otherwise uniquely aesthetically pleasing (well, any more so than an average, technically competent game).
What it does do is entertain, and in a unique, interesting way. It's incredibly fun. Hilarious, clever, and a bit chilling at times. But is it art? I sure don't think so.
Wow, that is entirely the wrong breakdown, here. The controller should *never* perform presentation activities. Ever. What happens if you decide you want to change to a vector-based display? Or make it digital? Or, heck, just change the colours?
No, the GP was right. Full MVC is overkill, here, as there's no use interaction, and thus no controller necessary. OTOH, a model would certainly have it's uses (transmuting UTC to time zones, breaking time down to YMDhms components, etc, could all be done in the model). But the vast bulk of any "render-heavy" application is obviously gonna be in the view.
It's an UI
Wow... do you actually say "ooey" when verbally referring to "you-eyes"? Because, that's, like, kinda weird. :)
No trolling at all, although perhaps I should have spoken differently. "Most of the successful _mandatory_ whitelists..."
And nothing about the concept of the application whitelist requires the list be mandatory. All it needs to do is put a barrier in the way that the user must jump over before they can opt out (for example, agreeing to void their warranty or limit their support contract).
Signed packages or drivers are one thing if there's an easy way to install unsigned packages or drivers. Ubuntu or Microsoft is giving something an endorsement. Nothing more.
No, what they're actively saying is "these things are trusted, you can use them safely". Particularly in the case of Microsoft signing drivers, that's far more than an endorsement, as it comes with a guarantee of safety. Which is, of course, the entire point of a whitelist to begin with.
But the iPhone, when used as Apple intends, forces average users to limit themselves to the whitelist. Apple has gone beyond this, and is acting as the Governor of their device.
Yes, congratulations, you've just reiterated a good part of my original post. Well done.
The part you left out is that Apple's system is *not* necessarily what whitelisting proponents intended, and so the OP's post, I think, draws a contradiction where one doesn't exist. Rather, Apple's system goes much farther than simply providing security guarantees on whitelisted apps, and is instead being used as a tool for limiting competition.
Not at all. Most of the more successful whitelists in history have been the product of either Government or Organized Religion.
Don't be an idiot. We're talking about a technical whitelist. It's no different than Ubuntu signing their packages, or Microsoft signing drivers. The only difference between those cases and Apple's app store is that Ubuntu and Microsoft let the user opt out.
Seriously, troll much?
And both get modded +5 insightful. In this case, Apple created the Whitelist that all the security people say we need. And applied it to a whole platform. They apparently do code reviews, and enforce proper usage of the API.
Yes, *but*, I think it's natural to assume that anyone advocating a "whitelist" approach to applications would simultaneously advocate an option to voluntarily opt out of that process.
And that's ignoring the fact that one of the big problems with, say, Apple's app store isn't necessarily that Apple is filtering the content, but that it's filtering it simply to benefit itself, by using the process as a cudgel to eliminate competing products. ie, security has nothing to do with it. It's all about protectionism. Additionally, it's clear the review process is largely arbitrary, which means seemingly legitimate apps can't even get through the process.
Of course, that's entirely their choice, it's their system, and the customers, by buying one of their devices, opt in to that system (after all, it's not like this is a big secret). But I think it obvious that advocates of a whitelist-based approach to application security didn't have in mind the approach Apple has taken with their system.
IE, Safari, and Chrome and Opera all claim to be Mozilla implementations.
ROFL! Wow, you honestly have absolutely *no idea* how modern web browsers came about, do you?
Christ, the fact that you think "Mozilla" in a user agent string means they're trying to mimic modern Firefox demonstrates just how laughably ignorant you must be.
Honestly, that must be one of the funnier things I've read in some time. Well done!
Ultimately, you're on the losing end of this debate. Open video is where it's at.
No. It's really not. Theora looks worse, requires more bits, doesn't yet have hardware acceleration (though that may be changing soon, we'll see), streams poorly (though that's Ogg's fault)... it's *only* advantage is on the patent issue, and the content providers have already paid for their licenses, and the users simply don't give a shit.
Meanwhile, Google, Vimeo, and basically every other major content provider has already standardized on H.264, largely because it's backwards compatible with their existing Flash-based players while also working in the video element.
No, Theora lost before the race ever began. The only question now, is, will Firefox finally relent before HTML5 really starts to make it big, and Firefox is left in the dust by browsers run by people who aren't blind ideologues with delusions of grandeur.
Aside from all the places that memory is shared between processes, theres no sharing between processes ... yea, I totally get you ...
That's exactly right. I pointed out all the places. *All of them*. And there's *two*: shared, read-only executable pages, and the heaps of children created by COW-enabled forks. That's it. That's all.
So any new technology for memory de-duping is impressive because, traditionally, it just ain't done. Which directly contradicts the content of your original post.
Perhaps now you understand?
What year do you live in? Solaris _9_ had COW and multiple page size support, over half a decade ago.
*snicker* I like how you phrased that as "half a decade ago"... "five years ago" sounds far less impressive, when you consider how industrial strength Solaris has traditionally been considered. :) That said, I fully concede my information is probably out-of-date. Glad to see Solaris finally moved into the 21st century!
Besides, it wasn't a criticism of Solaris (the only reason I came across the factoid at all was because I was doing work with very large numbers of processes on a single box, and Linux massively outperformed Solaris at the time, partly because of Linux's COW semantics for forked processes). My point was simply that memory sharing is the exception rather than the rule for OSes, in that there is a very limited scope in which it applies.
Seriously, sensitive much?
The issue is that Mozilla cannot legally integrate an H264 codec into their code base and remain GPL-compliant.
Sorry, no, that's just false, legally and technically.
All Firefox needs to do is integrate with a *generic* video backend. That backend can then provide H.264 support, and Firefox will be legally in the clear. It's just that simple.
Firefox simply chooses not to do this. They've tried to invent a bunch of technical reasons why they don't want to, but alas, they're weak at best. No, the Firefox devs dug their heels in for ideological reasons early, and continue to dig their heels in because they're stubborn and don't give a crap about their users (as an aside, they also *massively* overestimate the impact they can have on the web, hilariously of the belief that Firefox making a stand will somehow stem the tide of H.264 video on the web... it'd be funny if it weren't so sad).
The issue is that Mozilla cannot legally integrate an H264 codec into their code base and remain GPL-compliant.
Good, they shouldn't be doing that in the first place.
Uh huh. And why doesn't Chrome?
Because Google decided to just package H.264 with Chrome, as they're apparently unconcerned about patents. Firefox is concerned, so they need another approach.
And what of the 60% of Windows users with no H.264 support in the OS?
They, uh, install the codec?
And what of other desktop platforms and mobile platforms?
Fennec is *already* moving to gstreamer for video support. Firefox just decided not to backport the implementation.
Your approach is a poor solution which limits cross platform deployment,
Bull. Shit. Gstreamer is already cross-platform. For those freak platforms with no gstreamer or DirectShow support, they can just use the existing Theora implementation.
Okaaay.. so you're suggesting that video codecs are somehow more secure that image codecs?
Yeah, that's exactly what I said.
Or maybe I didn't say that at all, but you apparently felt like knocking down a strawman for kicks.
So, allow me to elucidate: All I said was that the OP pointed to an article about image codecs. We have no idea what MS will do when it comes to the video element. Though I'll be very surprised if they don't use DirectShow as the decoder backend (though they may choose to limit the codecs they expose through the video element).
Microsoft doesn't even support WMV videos in IE9.
Well goodie for them. But I'll bet you they're using DirectShow or something similar, rather than building an entire new decoding pipeline specifically for IE. Why? Because they aren't fucking idiots.
If your OS isn't sharing duplicate memory blocks already, you're using a shitty OS. (Linux already shares dup read only blocks for many things, like most modern OSes).
Umm, no.
Most modern OSes share memory for executable images and shared libraries. In addition, some OSes, such as Linux, support copy-on-write semantics for memory pages in child processes created with fork (note, Solaris is an example of an OS that *doesn't* do this).
Aside from that, there is no automated sharing of memory between processes. Frankly, I have no idea where you got the idea there was.
What exactly are you trying to imply with that?
I'm not implying anything. I'm *saying* that defenders of Mozilla's ridiculous stance have tried to claim:
1) Mozilla simply *can't* support H.264 for legal reasons. This is false, as there is no need for Mozilla to ship any codecs.
2) Mozilla simply *can't* support H.264 using OS-provided codecs because it's, like, hard and stuff. This is just BS.
3) Mozilla simply *can't* support H.264 using OS-provided codecs because of, like, security and stuff. As if Mozilla packaging it's own multimedia framework is suddenly so much better, and it's much wiser to not take advantage of OS-provided services that are regularly vetted and patched.
And now Mozilla simply *can't* support H.264 because then Firefox would behave differently on different platforms. As if it doesn't do so already.
In short, I'm saying, not implying, flat out stating, the people defending Mozilla's ridiculous position (either Mozilla staff themselves, or Mozilla fanbois) are now scraping around at the bottom of the barrel to come up with excuses to support their stance, instead of just admitting that the original choice was purely ideological, and their current stance is essentially an unwillingness to simply admit they were wrong.
1/ they will need to have codec support for theora (not necessarily installed);
User problem.
2/ the H.264 codec is only available on Windows 7 and later, and they cannot legally ship a H.264 codec for XP/Vista
User problem.
3/ they need to ensure that the DirectShow output works with the layers/svg/smil infrastructure as well as DirectWrite/Direct2D on Windows 7 -- e.g. does having a rotating, scaling video in a smil/svg file work;
Yup, it's a technical challenge. But don't tell me it's a blocker, as other browsers are already using this approach.
4/ they need to ensure that the audio output works well with other audio content (e.g. playing a and object at the same time);
See above. And this one's far easier (what audio output framework doesn't support hardware mixing multiple output streams in this day and age?).
5/ they would have to work around/live with any issues in the use of DirectShow/framework.
Yup, they sure do.
In addition, you also need a multimedia layer in the browser to support all of the multimedia frameworks,
You mean kinda like how they already wrap the platform-specific GUI libraries, rendering, etc, etc?
Sorry, *none* of these issues is a blocker. Not a single one. People are claiming Firefox *can't* support H.264, either for baseless legal reasons, or dubious technical reasons. But the reality is that Mozilla could add support if they wanted to. They *choose* not to because they took an ideological stance early, and now they don't want to back down, even if their choice is not in the best interests of their userbase.
Maybe you should read the comment again carefully. If video codec support can be treated as an "OS supplied service", why won't IE9 support all OS supplied codecs?
They *are* using OS supplied codecs, they're just choosing to limit the options available to reduce the security footprint. Firefox could do exactly the same thing.
Meanwhile, the MS statement was about image codecs. The OP was speculating they would do the same for video codecs, without any actual evidence to back that claim.
They only way they can do as you suggest is by severely compromising Firefox.
Utter garbage. Firefox is *already* subject to any bugs in the underlying OS on an incredibly wide range of issues. Hell, just a few years back, Firefox was compromised thanks to an image rendering bug in GDI on Windows. So, what, *now* they've suddenly decided they're going to reimplement OS-supplied services for fear of security issues? Please.
On the bright side, at least the Mozilla devs *tried* to invent a technical excuse for not supporting H.264, now that people have realized there are no legal barriers to doing so. Of course, it's a stupid, irrelevant, indefensible technical excuse. But, hey, kudos for trying, guys.
That sounds like the worst possible solution, because then you'd have Firefox working differently on different platforms.
Oh please, I can't believe this bullshit. All you need to do is put up a little box that says "Sorry, you don't have that codec installed. Go install it", just like they already do for plugins.
Honestly, this must be the worst excuse yet. The Mozilla defenders sure seem to be getting desperate...
I'll admit that Theora isn't the greatest video codec. But it's been explained many times that Mozilla simply can't use MPEG-4 AVC/h.264 because of the patents involved.
And has been explained many times before, that's complete, utter bullshit.
All Firefox needs to do is use a generic video decoding pipeline for it's backend. GStreamer and DirectShow come to mind (interesting sidebar, they're *already doing this with Fennec*, they just refuse to backport the changes to Firefox for idiotic political reasons). Then, Firefox can immediately use *any* codec those pipelines support, and given the video tag is supposed to be codec agnostic, that's a good thing, as it gives the web developer a choice of a wide variety of codecs to target. And if the user happens to have installed an h264 codec for one of those pipelines, then voila, Firefox immediately gets H.264 support without ever shipping any patented code.
Honestly, how is the hard to understand? The simple fact is, there are *no technical or legal arguments for not supporting H.264*. None. Zero. Nada. The only reason to refuse is for political or ideological reasons.
You are changing your terms. you said "no negative health effects" and "completely harmless" the ONLY point I am trying to make is there is no such thing.
Bah, that's just stupid. Water, in sufficient quantities, has negative health effects (in that it can kill you). I *specifically* referred to "long-term negative health effects" (go back and re-read my post where I listed those drugs).
My original point was this (quoted): "Honestly, *who cares* if these people are addicted to some drug, so long as the drug itself causes no negative health effects?".
Obviously that statement should be interpreted to mean *long-term* health effects, as those are the effects one should be concerned about vis a vis addiction. And if a drug has no said effects (such as nicotine), I repeat, who gives a shit if someone is addicted to it?
All I am trying to do is point out there is no such thing as a free lunch. Every action has a consequence.
And I'm saying that's a lie. THC, as just one example, has never had any negative health effects connected with it. Any claimed effects are either correlation studies (such as the one you cite) and do not actually prove causation, or are deeply flawed.
Hell, I would wager the reason THC is demonized is specifically *because* it has no negative side-effects. At least with booze, those who would push their morality on others can rationalize alcohol consumption away because users are "punished" for their abuse. THC has no such consequences.
All these yahoos seem to forget that they don't live in a bubble. We live in a society where our actions effect each other. When it comes to addictions, they need to be measured in their ill effects. Every drug has a negative health effect from Asprin, to Alchohol, to Caffine.
What, have you just chosen to conveniently forget that other thread? I already pointed out three drugs that have no known, long-term "ill effects". Caffeine is actually a good example of a fourth.
Honestly, what is it with you and this assumption that all drugs *must* have a negative side-effect, given the numerous examples to the contrary?
Morphine: outside of the dizziness, headaches, and death from overdose...not much, it is actually a pretty safe drug, hard to overdose on and is usually very well controlled. ...
Oxycodone...death is a factor, especially when someone is addicted, same as Morphine.
So you agree with me, neither of these drugs has any known negative, long-term health effects, and therefore a well-managed addiction is largely harmless.
Weird, since your post said exactly the opposite. So either you lied before, or you had a knee-jerk reaction based on the prevailing belief that these drugs must be bad simply because they're addictive. How very illustrative.
Nicotine..oh where do we start, here is an abstract:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9864303 for one small negative health effect...not to mention possible death from overdose.
Umm, what? It's well known that Nicotine shouldn't be used during pregnancy, something which is true of *many* drugs. I'm obviously referring to long-term negative side-effects experienced by the *user*.
So... care to try again?
A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and schizophrenia.
Well of course there's an association. You'd almost certainly see the same association with those illnesses and alcohol (among other drugs). Why? Because people who have anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, or schizophrenia, are likely to self-medicate.
Or, to break out the classic Slashdot trope: Correlation != causation. Particularly in this case.
dude, each one of those has negative health effects, massive ones at that
Such as?
Name one drug that causes no negative health effects.
Well, to name a few: nicotine, morphine, oxycodone... heck, I could probably go on. None of these drugs have any known negative, long-term health effects associated with them (though some have short-term side-effects, such as constipation, mood swings, etc). The only danger associated with them is dependence.
But, again, the problem is people don't like the idea of addiction maintenance, because, apparently, addiction is bad simply because it's bad, even if it's well managed and has no impact on the addict's day-to-day life.
I am surprised more taser victims haven't died from head injuries.
It's entirely possible they have, but remember, on a coroner's report, that'll be listed as death due to head injury, not tasing.