Actually I am no troll. I am a long time Firefox user. You really think that the majority of Firefox users care about which codec is "free" as which is not? We will see but history is not on your side.
You think that taking away the option of choice because you may have unexpected bugs valid? You think that 40% of the Windows users is too small of an installed base? Good heavens I make of it what it is. The death of Firefox. Probably not at some point they will cave in because of user demand. Too bad since a lot of people will have left never to return.
True DPRK always seems to be willing to work in it's own self interest. That was kind of my point. If they don't have a problem with Sony they sure as shooting will not have an issue with Samsung.
I don't consider Window 7 users a small installed base. It will grow to be pretty big over time. But what you are ignoring is why not allow the user to decide? A lot of WinBoxs have Quicktime installed if so allow them to use that for h.264 and default to it on OS/X since every OS/X machine has it. Allow them to use DirectShow if that is installed and has H.264 support. Allow them to use FFMeg if they have that installed! This "we are protecting you and we know what is right for you" crap sounds like the FOSS version of Steve Jobs!
Not fud at all. They said that not all Directshow codecs support everything that HTML 5 needs. They didn't give an example. That is FUD. Does the microsoft H.264 codec support what they need? Yes or no? Not worth the problems? What a load of garbage. Mozilla doesn't have the the user base to force people to not use H.264. I do hope that WebM does work and gets wide support but I am not holding my breath. So not pull javascript support out of Mozilla? I mean that causes a lot of bugs as well. And let's just not support embedded tags. One place we do agree is that Firefox doesn't need to be a malware scanner. So the argument that some codecs can contain malware isn't valid.
Frankly I fear that Mozilla's stand on H.264 will help IE a lot. I mean why download Firefox if it will not play a large amount of video on the web. If IE9 doesn't suck you will see a lot of people stick with it instead of Firefox.
And I disagree with the reasons for a number of reasons. Number one reason is politics and I feel politics and tech make for a bad user experience. But I will take his points one by one. "2 Only a very small fraction of Windows users have a DirectShow codec for the most important encumbered codec, H.264. Windows 7 will be the first version of Windows to ship with H.264 by default. Even if millions of people have downloaded H.264 codecs " Windows 7 is growing in percentage very quickly. Even so isn't giving x% of user the ability tp watch h264 better than zero? "3.DirectShow is underspecified and codecs are of highly variable quality. Many codecs probably will not work with Web sites that use all the rich APIs of , and those bugs will be filed against us. We probably will not be able to fix them. (" Really so you will have problems with getting h264 under windows 7 working with the microsoft codec? I some how doubt it. "4. Many DirectShow codecs are actually malware. ("Download codec XYZ to play free porn!")" So does Firefox currently prevent that? I don't think so. "5. DirectShow codecs are quite likely to have security holes. As those holes are uncovered, we will have to track the issues and often our only possible response will be to blacklist insecure codecs, since we can't fix them ourselves. If we blacklist enough codecs, DirectShow support becomes worthless." Really? And no other part of Windows, Linux, or OS/X has that issue? A simple solution would be to use DirectShow only for those codecs that you do not have internal support for and create a whitelist of codecs. In this case one for Microsofts H.264. And "6. Each new video backend creates additional maintenance headaches as we evolve our internal video code." Maybe an internal video solution is the wrong way to go. Every OS right now has a framework for video codecs why not use them? And of course the dirty little secret is that even when a program implements a codec odds are they going to use the same code base as the one in the OS's codec framework. The OGG for example. The Directshow codec and Firefox both use the same library supped by the OGG project.
How about this as an option. Give the enduser the OPTION. Yes allow the end user the choice to use Directshow or Quicktime or FFmpeg. Instead of just waving a useless protest sign around. What is going to happen is very simple. If Firefox will not play the content you want on the web then users will move. Chrome is a very good browser and IE doesn't suck as much as it once did. IE will gain the most followed by Chrome IMHO. Even Firefox diehards will drop back to IE or Chrome when Firefox fails them. So good bye to the mainstream FOSS browser. Microsoft will have done a great job of helping Firefox commit suicide by political grandstanding.
Not money yet. Google already gone public Lars probably got a bunch of stock options from Google but those are going to get harder to come by now. Facebook has yet to go public. Lars is getting a bunch of stock options and when Facebook goes public $$$$$. I wonder if anybody has gone from Yahoo to Google to Facebook. If so they are probably well past set for life at this point in time.
Mozilla has said time and time again they can not support H.264. They simply will not do it so they can make a political statement. IMHO this will be the end of the mainstream FOSS browser.
I understand it. But the statement that Firefox can to use h.264 is a flat out lie. They can use it and they can use it without a paying a cent. The can just use the already installed codec system for each of the OSs. In fact that would be the correct way from the stand point of code reuse and software components. It is silly to have 5 different programs on one OS all implanting h.264.
Firefox can implement h.264 they have chose not to to make a political statement! To put in any other way is a lie. And I do not care how important you think it is to make that statement it should not be wrapped with a lie.
What amazes me is how many people miss that point and are okay with that lie.
Funny but you have described IBM and DEC as well. Back when minis and mainframes ruled the earth that is how software was written for the most part. And no the wild west has just moved to the mobile space. But I find your comments funny about no more Myspace or geocites. Myspace came after Google's social network Orkut ay nd Geocities was replaced in large part by Blogger. And instead of Pets.com we have Twitter and FourSquare. FourSquare btw seems to have figured out how to make money which is good because I do like it so some things don't change. Don't get hung up on the past. Today you have access to things that in the early day of the internet people dreamed of. Cheap powerful servers, cheap powerful databases, cheap hosting, and many many millions of users that have high speed internet. I am waiting to see the first internet video network to take off. Not YouTube but one where they produce sitcoms and dramas and stream them straight to the internet. I do not think it will be any of the big networks but somebody will do it.
Wow. What Microsoft is saying is that they are going to provide codec support so every application on the planet doesn't have to reinvent the wheel and that endusers don't have to download codec packs from 3rd parties!
Mozilla could use the provided codec frameworks on each platform to provide h.264 support. The reason they will not is simply one of politics. Choice is a good thing so let the endusers decide. First time they got to play and h.264 video give them the choice of using the internal codec frame work or not. And in a security warning if you wish. If not I see a lot of folks going with Chrome.
Re:Good way to get your laptop attacked
on
USB 'Dead Drops'
·
· Score: 1
You could be correct but frankly a lot of slashdot posts of late have descended to the level of end user. Of course I remember telling people at one time that they couldn't get a virus just by reading email. Of course that was back when email was just text and before Outlook Express. DAMM you Microsoft and Html email!
Re:Good way to get your laptop attacked
on
USB 'Dead Drops'
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Umm.. I guess you didn't read about the Stuxnet worm that used several zero day USB based explotes including a buffer overrun in lnk files. Last I heard not all of those where patched so if you are using a windows machine odds are you are. Also if one was to be really nasty they would hack a microcontroller to be a keyboard and then hijack your machine that way.
No on that point I agree. Within limits that is. If we did that then companies in Taiwan, Japan, and Thailand would just contract with China and then sell to the US. Those companies wouldn't abuse their workers and follow US rules but would buy parts from places that didn't. The chain would just shift I fear. I think it is odd what most favored nation trading status now means today. I think only 4 nations lack that status.
That is correct. The government must be answerable to the people. That doesn't mean fear. And the rest is just of what the grand parent says is just more political posturing. That person feels they must educate all of simpletons because we just don't understand...
Wow this is just silly. How narcissistic can one be? This problem has nothing to do with the US and everything to do with China. If a US company did offer to pay more do you think that they would use that money for safe working conditions or do you think they would just take more profit? I am all for buying from free nations but that alone will not do much to solve the problem. Until China cares about the Chinese nothing will change. The rest is just unrelated.
"It is the same amount of chemical energy being transferred into you gas tank." Yes it is but it is in a stable from and not being changed from one form to another. That is the key. When you charge a battery you are causing a chemical reaction that stores x% of the energy and the rest is heat. So take 5% of say 10 gallons of gas and burn it in only 6 minutes... I think you will see the problems. Until I see it,in this demo they took 4 hours I will not believe it. Lets see some proof.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually they have been used in diesels for years. I believe that some US subs in WWII used an opposed piston engine but I am not 100% sure.
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
Actually I am no troll. I am a long time Firefox user. You really think that the majority of Firefox users care about which codec is "free" as which is not?
We will see but history is not on your side.
You think that taking away the option of choice because you may have unexpected bugs valid?
You think that 40% of the Windows users is too small of an installed base?
Good heavens I make of it what it is. The death of Firefox. Probably not at some point they will cave in because of user demand. Too bad since a lot of people will have left never to return.
I thought that the story said they where actually traveling to China with the SD cards.
True DPRK always seems to be willing to work in it's own self interest. That was kind of my point. If they don't have a problem with Sony they sure as shooting will not have an issue with Samsung.
I don't consider Window 7 users a small installed base. It will grow to be pretty big over time. But what you are ignoring is why not allow the user to decide?
A lot of WinBoxs have Quicktime installed if so allow them to use that for h.264 and default to it on OS/X since every OS/X machine has it.
Allow them to use DirectShow if that is installed and has H.264 support.
Allow them to use FFMeg if they have that installed!
This "we are protecting you and we know what is right for you" crap sounds like the FOSS version of Steve Jobs!
Really do we need to know how this is done? I am hoping this is a red heiring and that they are using other methods to get the SD cards out.
As opposed to Japanese brands?
I suggest you read some history of Korea.
But who uses Vanilla Firefox? I have moved to Chrome because they have the plug-ins I need.
Not fud at all. They said that not all Directshow codecs support everything that HTML 5 needs. They didn't give an example. That is FUD. Does the microsoft H.264 codec support what they need? Yes or no?
Not worth the problems? What a load of garbage. Mozilla doesn't have the the user base to force people to not use H.264. I do hope that WebM does work and gets wide support but I am not holding my breath.
So not pull javascript support out of Mozilla? I mean that causes a lot of bugs as well.
And let's just not support embedded tags.
One place we do agree is that Firefox doesn't need to be a malware scanner. So the argument that some codecs can contain malware isn't valid.
Frankly I fear that Mozilla's stand on H.264 will help IE a lot. I mean why download Firefox if it will not play a large amount of video on the web. If IE9 doesn't suck you will see a lot of people stick with it instead of Firefox.
Thanks I was going to add see APL why this is a bad plan.
Do we really want to make people get programmers keyboards and learn a new way to type?
And I disagree with the reasons for a number of reasons.
Number one reason is politics and I feel politics and tech make for a bad user experience.
But I will take his points one by one.
"2 Only a very small fraction of Windows users have a DirectShow codec for the most important encumbered codec, H.264. Windows 7 will be the first version of Windows to ship with H.264 by default. Even if millions of people have downloaded H.264 codecs "
Windows 7 is growing in percentage very quickly. Even so isn't giving x% of user the ability tp watch h264 better than zero?
"3.DirectShow is underspecified and codecs are of highly variable quality. Many codecs probably will not work with Web sites that use all the rich APIs of , and those bugs will be filed against us. We probably will not be able to fix them. ("
Really so you will have problems with getting h264 under windows 7 working with the microsoft codec?
I some how doubt it.
"4. Many DirectShow codecs are actually malware. ("Download codec XYZ to play free porn!")"
So does Firefox currently prevent that? I don't think so.
"5. DirectShow codecs are quite likely to have security holes. As those holes are uncovered, we will have to track the issues and often our only possible response will be to blacklist insecure codecs, since we can't fix them ourselves. If we blacklist enough codecs, DirectShow support becomes worthless."
Really? And no other part of Windows, Linux, or OS/X has that issue?
A simple solution would be to use DirectShow only for those codecs that you do not have internal support for and create a whitelist of codecs. In this case one for Microsofts H.264.
And
"6. Each new video backend creates additional maintenance headaches as we evolve our internal video code."
Maybe an internal video solution is the wrong way to go.
Every OS right now has a framework for video codecs why not use them?
And of course the dirty little secret is that even when a program implements a codec odds are they going to use the same code base as the one in the OS's codec framework.
The OGG for example. The Directshow codec and Firefox both use the same library supped by the OGG project.
How about this as an option. Give the enduser the OPTION. Yes allow the end user the choice to use Directshow or Quicktime or FFmpeg. Instead of just waving a useless protest sign around.
What is going to happen is very simple. If Firefox will not play the content you want on the web then users will move.
Chrome is a very good browser and IE doesn't suck as much as it once did.
IE will gain the most followed by Chrome IMHO.
Even Firefox diehards will drop back to IE or Chrome when Firefox fails them.
So good bye to the mainstream FOSS browser. Microsoft will have done a great job of helping Firefox commit suicide by political grandstanding.
Not money yet.
Google already gone public Lars probably got a bunch of stock options from Google but those are going to get harder to come by now.
Facebook has yet to go public. Lars is getting a bunch of stock options and when Facebook goes public $$$$$.
I wonder if anybody has gone from Yahoo to Google to Facebook. If so they are probably well past set for life at this point in time.
Mozilla has said time and time again they can not support H.264. They simply will not do it so they can make a political statement.
IMHO this will be the end of the mainstream FOSS browser.
I understand it.
But the statement that Firefox can to use h.264 is a flat out lie.
They can use it and they can use it without a paying a cent. The can just use the already installed codec system for each of the OSs. In fact that would be the correct way from the stand point of code reuse and software components.
It is silly to have 5 different programs on one OS all implanting h.264.
Firefox can implement h.264 they have chose not to to make a political statement! To put in any other way is a lie. And I do not care how important you think it is to make that statement it should not be wrapped with a lie.
What amazes me is how many people miss that point and are okay with that lie.
Funny but you have described IBM and DEC as well. Back when minis and mainframes ruled the earth that is how software was written for the most part. And no the wild west has just moved to the mobile space.
But I find your comments funny about no more Myspace or geocites. Myspace came after Google's social network Orkut ay nd Geocities was replaced in large part by Blogger.
And instead of Pets.com we have Twitter and FourSquare. FourSquare btw seems to have figured out how to make money which is good because I do like it so some things don't change. Don't get hung up on the past. Today you have access to things that in the early day of the internet people dreamed of. Cheap powerful servers, cheap powerful databases, cheap hosting, and many many millions of users that have high speed internet.
I am waiting to see the first internet video network to take off. Not YouTube but one where they produce sitcoms and dramas and stream them straight to the internet.
I do not think it will be any of the big networks but somebody will do it.
Wow.
What Microsoft is saying is that they are going to provide codec support so every application on the planet doesn't have to reinvent the wheel and that endusers don't have to download codec packs from 3rd parties!
Mozilla could use the provided codec frameworks on each platform to provide h.264 support. The reason they will not is simply one of politics.
Choice is a good thing so let the endusers decide. First time they got to play and h.264 video give them the choice of using the internal codec frame work or not. And in a security warning if you wish.
If not I see a lot of folks going with Chrome.
You could be correct but frankly a lot of slashdot posts of late have descended to the level of end user.
Of course I remember telling people at one time that they couldn't get a virus just by reading email. Of course that was back when email was just text and before Outlook Express. DAMM you Microsoft and Html email!
Umm.. I guess you didn't read about the Stuxnet worm that used several zero day USB based explotes including a buffer overrun in lnk files.
Last I heard not all of those where patched so if you are using a windows machine odds are you are.
Also if one was to be really nasty they would hack a microcontroller to be a keyboard and then hijack your machine that way.
No on that point I agree. Within limits that is.
If we did that then companies in Taiwan, Japan, and Thailand would just contract with China and then sell to the US. Those companies wouldn't abuse their workers and follow US rules but would buy parts from places that didn't.
The chain would just shift I fear.
I think it is odd what most favored nation trading status now means today. I think only 4 nations lack that status.
That is correct. The government must be answerable to the people. That doesn't mean fear. And the rest is just of what the grand parent says is just more political posturing.
That person feels they must educate all of simpletons because we just don't understand...
Wow this is just silly. How narcissistic can one be? This problem has nothing to do with the US and everything to do with China. If a US company did offer to pay more do you think that they would use that money for safe working conditions or do you think they would just take more profit?
I am all for buying from free nations but that alone will not do much to solve the problem. Until China cares about the Chinese nothing will change.
The rest is just unrelated.
"It is the same amount of chemical energy being transferred into you gas tank." Yes it is but it is in a stable from and not being changed from one form to another. ,in this demo they took 4 hours I will not believe it.
That is the key. When you charge a battery you are causing a chemical reaction that stores x% of the energy and the rest is heat. So take 5% of say 10 gallons of gas and burn it in only 6 minutes... I think you will see the problems. Until I see it
Lets see some proof.