Only the first paragraph is an actual citation, as it stands it looks like your attributing the rant that follows to the link.
Either way I fail to see how the difficulty of initially implementing Ogg Theora is related to continuous use of the existing implementation. Ogg Skeleton is in the works to fix the seeking problems and Matroska is designed for streaming.
The OS supports H.264, Firefox and Opera should stop holding the web back and help Microsoft, Apple and Google steal video playback from Adobe.
The OS? There is no such thing, the only common operating systems natively supporting H.264 are Windows 7 and whichever cat it was introduced in OS X. That doesn't help Mozilla, who are commited to cross platform development nor Opera, who make money off of embedded browsers. Maybe Apple should stop trying to cash in on their lone patent in the MPEG LA?
Since people keep bringing up Matroska as a well designed coded we could see what they say about Ogg:
It's less a matter of better/worse, and more a matter of different. This is a little complex but we will try ad explain.
and
Will Matroska be streamable? Yes, but low bitrate streaming like streaming Vorbis, will always be better in Ogg. This is because their design is for different purposes.
Are we to believe that they have no clue about container formats?
In other words Xiph containers and codecs are about as safe from unknown codecs as H.264. MPEG LA only gives you a bundle of known patents for your cash.
The choices are not h264 or theora. Its h.264 through an open html5 spec, or h264 through silverlight and flash.
If there is no choice (H.264 not being open in the sense that other web standards are), then it doesn't really matter who wins.
The whole debate is stupid, firefox needs to just use the operating system's built in codecs to play h264. Problem solved.
Because relying on the user to have the right codec worked so nice in the past Flash video never got off the ground... Back in reality making a standard that only benefits big players is pointless, Google will make Youtube work no matter what happens with HTML5, John no-budged site will not be able to build a H.264 content library without worrying about MPEG LA, in 2016 if not now.
The rule ussually amounts to the "root level" passwords must be varified by two people then two sealed evelopes containg the passwords with the signature of the people that varified them were placed in a high security safe that was not controlled by IT but by legal.
Physical security is outside of the domain of both IT and legal, I don't see why you give this as a positive example.
Is that the "on the internet" of the smartphone era? Unless the touchscreen actually comes into play in the implementation it has no (or shouldn't anyway) bearing.
Just about any product out there comes with some sort of fine print, often at least partially unenforceable, lawyers would have a hard time sorting it all out, why is a teenager expected to?
While this can be true for physical goods (my house is worth exactly what I sell it for)
A house is just about the worst example right now for equating value and cost seeing that many houses droped cost-wise without any change to the value they provide to the people living in them.
Except then it won't. Putty isn't exactly a complex application that relies much on the OS... You also neglect to ignore the non-Intel NT4 platforms and the fact that binaries from them will most certainly not work on, say, Windows 7. Yes, a large chunk of stuff is forward compatible, and another large chunk of popular stuff has special hacks from Microsoft that makes it look like it is. But in the end, if you rely on everything to "Just Work" you will find yourself in a hole when it fails.
Can you suggest an alternative to the SIL font license? I guess GPLv3 with a specific font exception would work, since it would remain compatible with other GPLv3 stuff, but the specific language of such an exception is what I'm looking for.
You cannot compare ogg vorbis to h.264 using youtube as a guide using the methods in the article, it was a very bad test from the start.
You can't? Not even when people complain that Theora isn't good enough for Youtube? Why can't you compare it to what Youtube actually does in that case?
Please, read again what I said about YouTube videos being intentionally encoded with lower settings for better decoding speed.
Please read what the summary said about being good enough for web video. Theora can't match H.264 for every application, but it is demonstratively up to par with what Youtube considers to be good enough. In fact it was a response to a statement by someone from Google claiming that Theora isn't good enough for Youtube.
In other words, there isn't much hardware that specifically decodes H.264. On the other hand there is a lot hardware that, with the right software support, will greatly accelerate the process.
What Mozilla and Opera are doing is trying to make it an end-user problem when it actually isn't. The end users have the codecs. Use them. Giving users the choice is far superior to steadfastly refusing to give them a choice.
You have it backwards. If the user has to have the right codecs for the right sites then it is an end user problem, exactly like things were before flash video swept the market. Mozilla and Opera are trying to make it a content provider problem by giving the user one codec that will play in all new browsers they make.
Doesn't seem like the multiwindow interface is going away anytime soon. If they can make both work without too much maintenance overhead later on I won't mind to have the option, just don't think it will actually do much about the bulk of the complainers.
I wasn't commenting on your experience (and I'll refrain on voicing my opinion on teaching tools vs. concepts mainly because I don't know where your classes stand), just on the broad "no one cares about Gimp" comment.
I too am looking forward to high color depths a more non-destructive workflow (hopefully a full blown node interface instead of overloading layers), that doesn't make GIMP as it stands any less valuable. Particularly since for digital photography needs they can be mitigated by getting the raw conversion settings right (a good idea no matter what) and careful layer management.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be Matroska is not designed for streaming.
Only the first paragraph is an actual citation, as it stands it looks like your attributing the rant that follows to the link. Either way I fail to see how the difficulty of initially implementing Ogg Theora is related to continuous use of the existing implementation. Ogg Skeleton is in the works to fix the seeking problems and Matroska is designed for streaming.
The OS? There is no such thing, the only common operating systems natively supporting H.264 are Windows 7 and whichever cat it was introduced in OS X. That doesn't help Mozilla, who are commited to cross platform development nor Opera, who make money off of embedded browsers. Maybe Apple should stop trying to cash in on their lone patent in the MPEG LA?
MPEG LA isn't three anything.
and
Are we to believe that they have no clue about container formats?
In other words Xiph containers and codecs are about as safe from unknown codecs as H.264. MPEG LA only gives you a bundle of known patents for your cash.
If there is no choice (H.264 not being open in the sense that other web standards are), then it doesn't really matter who wins.
Because relying on the user to have the right codec worked so nice in the past Flash video never got off the ground... Back in reality making a standard that only benefits big players is pointless, Google will make Youtube work no matter what happens with HTML5, John no-budged site will not be able to build a H.264 content library without worrying about MPEG LA, in 2016 if not now.
I think it's quite clear that he was talking in terms of standardization, not in what content providers would consider using.
Physical security is outside of the domain of both IT and legal, I don't see why you give this as a positive example.
It's almost certainly Flash all by itself, Mozilla might not be perfect, but they are doing way better then Adobe.
Is that the "on the internet" of the smartphone era? Unless the touchscreen actually comes into play in the implementation it has no (or shouldn't anyway) bearing.
Just about any product out there comes with some sort of fine print, often at least partially unenforceable, lawyers would have a hard time sorting it all out, why is a teenager expected to?
A house is just about the worst example right now for equating value and cost seeing that many houses droped cost-wise without any change to the value they provide to the people living in them.
Pretty much any hack relies on exploits...
Except then it won't. Putty isn't exactly a complex application that relies much on the OS... You also neglect to ignore the non-Intel NT4 platforms and the fact that binaries from them will most certainly not work on, say, Windows 7. Yes, a large chunk of stuff is forward compatible, and another large chunk of popular stuff has special hacks from Microsoft that makes it look like it is. But in the end, if you rely on everything to "Just Work" you will find yourself in a hole when it fails.
Can you suggest an alternative to the SIL font license? I guess GPLv3 with a specific font exception would work, since it would remain compatible with other GPLv3 stuff, but the specific language of such an exception is what I'm looking for.
You can't? Not even when people complain that Theora isn't good enough for Youtube? Why can't you compare it to what Youtube actually does in that case?
Citation on the CPU usage please. The one thing that comes with lower complexity is lower CPU strain.
Please read what the summary said about being good enough for web video. Theora can't match H.264 for every application, but it is demonstratively up to par with what Youtube considers to be good enough. In fact it was a response to a statement by someone from Google claiming that Theora isn't good enough for Youtube.
In other words, there isn't much hardware that specifically decodes H.264. On the other hand there is a lot hardware that, with the right software support, will greatly accelerate the process.
You have it backwards. If the user has to have the right codecs for the right sites then it is an end user problem, exactly like things were before flash video swept the market. Mozilla and Opera are trying to make it a content provider problem by giving the user one codec that will play in all new browsers they make.
Doesn't seem like the multiwindow interface is going away anytime soon. If they can make both work without too much maintenance overhead later on I won't mind to have the option, just don't think it will actually do much about the bulk of the complainers.
I wasn't commenting on your experience (and I'll refrain on voicing my opinion on teaching tools vs. concepts mainly because I don't know where your classes stand), just on the broad "no one cares about Gimp" comment.
I too am looking forward to high color depths a more non-destructive workflow (hopefully a full blown node interface instead of overloading layers), that doesn't make GIMP as it stands any less valuable. Particularly since for digital photography needs they can be mitigated by getting the raw conversion settings right (a good idea no matter what) and careful layer management.
In theory. In practice I've had Windows 2000 drivers fail on XP.
People are using it, developing it and writing books about it. Is there a reason to take you seriously about this?
So haw many desktop operating systems support 10 year old binary drivers?