I'd rather have a dozen tools, each of which excells at it's one thing, than one tool that does a half-assed job at a dozen things.
That's a false dichotomy. There's no law that something that only does one thing has to suck at it, or that something that does more than one thing can't be good at all of them. What about a tool that excels at a dozen things versus one that sucks at the only thing it does? Which tool would you use?
Anyway, back to VLC. I would not say it excels as a media playback interface. It's quite clunky and ordinary as far as user interaction goes. What it does do well is handle a lot of different formats. It would be nice if it did that and was pleasant to use.
This would effectively mean that no "true FOSS" implementation could legally support HTML5.
Only on Linux though. On Windows or MacOS, they both have media frameworks that have legally licensed support for H.264. I don't see why, say, Firefox couldn't use those frameworks on those platforms.
One could argue that code distributed under BSDL or a similar license, which would induce patent infringement by downstream users should they try to redistribute it, is not truly FOSS.
One could argue that, but it would be a very strange and nonsensical argument, as such licenses are actually freer than the GPL. So, you'd have to twist the meaning of "free" in any attempt to make that argument.
In any case, a more practical take on this is: are there any good browsers and/or rendering engines that are not under GPL, LGPL, or similar licenses?
WebKit is BSD licensed, is widely used, and considered one of the best rendering engines around.
Anyway, is there any need for a GPL browser to actually redistribute the proprietary code? Couldn't they simply ship without the code, and have the user install it as a plug-in, whether it be an officially licensed proprietary version of the CODEC, or a "gray-market" open source or freeware implementation that hasn't been licensed?
since FOSS browsers won't be able to support it legally (at least in U.S.), nor free content creation/editing tools.
I don't see why FOSS browsers couldn't do it legally. It seems that what you actually mean is GPL licensed browsers couldn't do it. But there is more to FOSS than just the GPL, and there are plenty of other less-restrictive FOSS licenses out there.
Authors ideally should not be concerned with visual layout. They just need to make sure that the logical structure (headings, notes, location of diagrams) is clear. Doesn't matter if they use Courier or Comic sans.
Yes, this was my point. Word is terrible at both structure and layout. We need something that works better as a source document for both print and web professionals.
Why is LaTeX archaic, but HTML not? LaTeX is infinitely more powerful when it comes to layout.
Because HTML continues to evolve LaTex does not. It may be powerful at layout (but not as powerful as something like InDesign or Quark) but what I'm talking about it something that encompasses page layout, web design, and semantic markup.
Screens are not pieces of paper. They are entirely different mediums with entirely different requirements.
Of course. Which is why CSS allows different stylesheets for different media, such as "print" and "screen." The problem is it's not sufficient at the moment.
HTML has its place, but there are proper typesetting languages out there, designed specifically for what you want. So learn them.
I've worked for plenty of years in print design, so I know them. But that's not enough. We need to bring sanity in document formats to the average user. To the professor of arts who doesn't know anything about a computer except how to use Word. I have wished for a long time that people who write and publish would develop some sort of typographical literacy, but the reality is that it's never going to happen.
Add in the other users responsible for publishing content online such as HTML monkeys or blog editors, and you're just not going to get the expertise required to master all the different permutations. We need something that is portable, flexible, and able to supplant Word documents and proprietary page layout files.
As I hope I have already impressed, the problem is not just to create page layout for print publications, it's also to be able to use that file to create decent web pages without any modification, that works with content management systems and the like.
I agree that HTML is not that great. Which is why I'm arguing for a new standard, perhaps something that merges HTML/LaTex/PDF? I'm just doubt that LaTex is the way, it's so archaic. HTML has potential, if decent typesetting features were integrated with it and CSS. CSS is supposed to be capable of dealing with different media, it just needs to deliver on the promise, which it currently isn't.
Why not? It's easily licensable, and Mozilla has a pretty decent income.
If by "intelligent people" you mean corporations.
No, I mean "intelligent people." Corporations are just a legal/economic entity. People have to work to come up with new video compression techniques, etc.
Software patents are stupid and bad for the web.
Why are software patents stupid? Because you say so? Do you think there should be a difference between software and non-software patents? Why?
If someone should choose to spend their intellectual work in developing software, why should they be any less protected than someone who chooses to develop physical products and techniques? You are essentially arguing against innovation in software.
You support h.264 for your reasons (software patents are good, and minuscule performance differences are more important than unencumbered software),
My main reason is much simpler than that - Theora simply isn't implemented in very many places. H.264 is. The performance benefits are just gravy. And I wouldn't say that software patents are "good" - they're just a fact of life, and I don't see why software developers should be discriminated against compared to other types of developers/engineers/inventors/scientists.
It's not even that I "support H.264" - I think a decent Open Source video implementation would be great, but I'm pragmatic, and can see that Theora has practical problems (as does H.264).
I just wish slashdot would discuss these issues rationally, as they do at the W3C, rather than the one-sided fanatacism for anything Open Source.
(I have FOSS to thank for my career and favorite activity, and I think that software patents are stupid).
That's some profound and sophisticated reasoning right there.
Read the MPEG-4 standard. MPEG LA is totally free to stipulate that licensees implement part 13.
Yeah, so what? Allowing one to implement DRM is not the same as requiring it. It simply doesn't make sense in this context, which is web browsers, and we are mostly talking about content which the authors want to be public, not restricted. Nobody's forcing DRM on you.
Anyway, what's to stop somebody putting a DRM wrapper around Theora?
You contradict yourself. Your original point was "It's not like anybody is suggesting that Windows Media Video should be the baseline standard". You were saying that one was a standard and the other wasn't.
There is a SMPTE standard based on a particular version of WMV. Saying "WMV is a standard" is as nonsensical as saying that Quicktime is a standard, because the MPEG-4 container is based on Quicktime.
In any case, not all standards bodies are equal, and SMPTE is significantly narrower in scope than ISO/IEC.
The issue is that h.264 would end Firefox and enrich a patent cabal (besides damaging the web, imho).
You're going off the deep end here:
How would H.264 "End Firefox"?
What makes the MPEG patents a cabal? There's nothing secret about the organization, and the whole idea of the patent pool is to provide more accessibility and easier licensing, pretty much the opposite of "secret plotting."
You seem to be under the false impression that the goal of the HTML spec is to support Firefox and Open Source agendas in general. It's not.
I know it's heresy around here, but I don't see what's so evil about the patent pool and the MPEG groups. People worked hard to create superior video CODECs. Why shouldn't their work be rewarded? Why should we use inferior technology just to satisfy your ideological agenda? The whole idea of patents is to reward innovation, and that's exactly what they do when used properly. It seems to me that you are saying we should settle for mediocrity because it's "free" and intelligent people who create software and new techniques should not be rewarded for their work.
LaTex is a solution for certain (usually niche) purposes, but has its drawbacks, like everything else. The problem is that we are a dealing with an online world, where things are published in several different formats, online and offline. LaTex doesn't translate easily or cleanly into HTML, or vice-versa. And good luck getting people outside of math and science academia to use LaTex.
This is a real problem, and shouldn't simply be brushed aside with "use this" comments. There currently is no workable format, no Lingua Franca for multipurpose documents. A solution should at least be attempted to make the web, word processing, page layout and typography interoperable.
Don't get me wrong, I actually like LaTex, but it's an exercise in frustration trying to integrate it with the rest of the world.
No, because it is the only free and legal option open to all users and manufacturers.
It may be free, but nobody really knows if it's legal yet, due to the issue of submarine patents.
Theora should be specified.
Why? Because you like it? The HTML spec is not a platform of Open Source evangelism.
They can then add H264 or whatever as well if they wish, but for those who cannot use H264, Theora is a fallback available so that they can meet the standard.
But that means that everybody has to host Theora alongside their higher-quality videos. For content providers, that's not a very attractive option. We'd rather use the standard that is widely adopted in the real world, and only have one file to upload.
What good is a standard if you automatically prevent certain manufacturers from meeting it ?
That's an issue with any standard in the world. There's always going to be somebody who cannot meet a standard, for whatever reason. I haven't seen any evidence that "automatically prevents" Mozilla or Opera from supporting H.264. They just choose not to.
Your same argument also applies to Ogg Theora. It "automatically prevents" Apple and Microsoft from implementing it, because the uncertain legal landscape and risk of litigation.
Oh that's right, it's not about creating a standard, it's about protecting someones IP and profits.
Got any evidence of that? Have you even read the group's mailing list on this topic? There's no evidence of this being done to protect anybody's profits. If you actually read it, it's a very level-headed and intelligent conversation about drafting good standards that will be implemented in the real world. Nobody involved appears to have been compromised by commercial interests.
Of course it means something. It's a widely-used standard, not a single-vendor proprietary CODEC. It means it's highly interoperable, and in everyday use.
That it is a standard does not mean that it won't be used to smash FOSS and force DRM on everyone.
What the hell does this have to do with DRM?
Man... This "standard" thing is killing me. WMV is a "standard", too (SMPTE 421M). This term is being thrown around, cynically, to muddy the waters.
You're upset because people are using the word "standards" to describe things that are actually standards? That's bizarre. It's not as if the Open Source community is the only one with the right to define standards.
The problem here is that people are throwing around the word "proprietary" in a way that is essentially meaningless.
But you explicitly said that you based your decision on "not being part of the herd". I hear that breathing is pretty popular among "the herd" too, perhaps you should try not breathing for a change?
Your "popular doesn't mean good" argument also has corollaries. By the same token, popular does not equal "bad" and unpopular does not equal "good."
You use of the phrase "the herd" also implies that people who choose the popular option do it unthinkingly, that they don't "conduct their own tests and make their own decisions." But, of course, many people do that and make the decision to use the popular item.
I just found your comment amusing, because it reminds me of the "individualists" who flock to subcultures in an effort to become "alternative" - but as soon as their subculture/music/fashion becomes popular they don't like it anymore. They tend to be worse fashion victims and conformists than those in the mainstream, all the while maintaining that they are unique and beholden to nobody. I mean, why did you like that music in the first place? Isn't it still good music if it suddenly becomes a popular hit?
Google, Opera and Mozilla won't support anything that puts them at risk of needing to pay royalties on the huge number of free downloads they give away.
Except, of course, that Google does pay the royalties, and is objecting to Ogg Theora for the Youtube service, arguing for H.264 instead. Of course, you didn't read the article or do any research before you spouted off, did you?
Your arguments against ogg theora would apply just as well to ogg vorbis...
No they wouldn't. The video CODEC field is much more heavily contested by patents and patent trolls than the audio field. Vorbis has pretty much been shown to be in the clear, while Theora hasn't. It's a valid issue. And patents aren't the only issue - there are technical and performance reasons too.
B) refusing to implement because doing so would make it harder for a company to lock people into proprietary formats
But nobody is doing that. It's not like anybody is suggesting that Windows Media Video should be the baseline standard. The argument is over Ogg versus H.264, which is an ISO/IEC standard.
Are you serious? YouTube rejecting Theora for quality issues? Have you been to YouTube recently? YouTube doesn't seem to give the slightest care about video quality.
That's because you're looking at horrible flash video. If you download the H.264 version, they look much better.
See, this is something that open source accomplishes that stupid fucking arrogant businesses will never get. When something is obsolete or no longer needed, it gets ditched or replaced by something better.
What the fuck are you referring to here? This article is about Ogg Theora vs H.264. In this case, H.264 is the more sophisticated, "better" technology, while the Open Source option is the more primitive.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd rather have a dozen tools, each of which excells at it's one thing, than one tool that does a half-assed job at a dozen things.
That's a false dichotomy. There's no law that something that only does one thing has to suck at it, or that something that does more than one thing can't be good at all of them. What about a tool that excels at a dozen things versus one that sucks at the only thing it does? Which tool would you use?
Anyway, back to VLC. I would not say it excels as a media playback interface. It's quite clunky and ordinary as far as user interaction goes. What it does do well is handle a lot of different formats. It would be nice if it did that and was pleasant to use.
This would effectively mean that no "true FOSS" implementation could legally support HTML5.
Only on Linux though. On Windows or MacOS, they both have media frameworks that have legally licensed support for H.264. I don't see why, say, Firefox couldn't use those frameworks on those platforms.
56% of people use IE? My God, that's amazing. Who the hell are these people? I can barely remember the last time I saw somebody using IE.
One could argue that code distributed under BSDL or a similar license, which would induce patent infringement by downstream users should they try to redistribute it, is not truly FOSS.
One could argue that, but it would be a very strange and nonsensical argument, as such licenses are actually freer than the GPL. So, you'd have to twist the meaning of "free" in any attempt to make that argument.
In any case, a more practical take on this is: are there any good browsers and/or rendering engines that are not under GPL, LGPL, or similar licenses?
WebKit is BSD licensed, is widely used, and considered one of the best rendering engines around.
Anyway, is there any need for a GPL browser to actually redistribute the proprietary code? Couldn't they simply ship without the code, and have the user install it as a plug-in, whether it be an officially licensed proprietary version of the CODEC, or a "gray-market" open source or freeware implementation that hasn't been licensed?
since FOSS browsers won't be able to support it legally (at least in U.S.), nor free content creation/editing tools.
I don't see why FOSS browsers couldn't do it legally. It seems that what you actually mean is GPL licensed browsers couldn't do it. But there is more to FOSS than just the GPL, and there are plenty of other less-restrictive FOSS licenses out there.
Gee, really, you think so? Nobody else on slashdot would ever have thought of that scene, in this context, not even briefly.
Authors ideally should not be concerned with visual layout. They just need to make sure that the logical structure (headings, notes, location of diagrams) is clear. Doesn't matter if they use Courier or Comic sans.
Yes, this was my point. Word is terrible at both structure and layout. We need something that works better as a source document for both print and web professionals.
Why is LaTeX archaic, but HTML not? LaTeX is infinitely more powerful when it comes to layout.
Because HTML continues to evolve LaTex does not. It may be powerful at layout (but not as powerful as something like InDesign or Quark) but what I'm talking about it something that encompasses page layout, web design, and semantic markup.
Screens are not pieces of paper. They are entirely different mediums with entirely different requirements.
Of course. Which is why CSS allows different stylesheets for different media, such as "print" and "screen." The problem is it's not sufficient at the moment.
HTML has its place, but there are proper typesetting languages out there, designed specifically for what you want. So learn them.
I've worked for plenty of years in print design, so I know them. But that's not enough. We need to bring sanity in document formats to the average user. To the professor of arts who doesn't know anything about a computer except how to use Word. I have wished for a long time that people who write and publish would develop some sort of typographical literacy, but the reality is that it's never going to happen.
Add in the other users responsible for publishing content online such as HTML monkeys or blog editors, and you're just not going to get the expertise required to master all the different permutations. We need something that is portable, flexible, and able to supplant Word documents and proprietary page layout files.
As I hope I have already impressed, the problem is not just to create page layout for print publications, it's also to be able to use that file to create decent web pages without any modification, that works with content management systems and the like.
I agree that HTML is not that great. Which is why I'm arguing for a new standard, perhaps something that merges HTML/LaTex/PDF? I'm just doubt that LaTex is the way, it's so archaic. HTML has potential, if decent typesetting features were integrated with it and CSS. CSS is supposed to be capable of dealing with different media, it just needs to deliver on the promise, which it currently isn't.
MPEG LA terms are going to be nastier in 2011.
And you know this, how?
Mozilla can't implement h.264.
Why not? It's easily licensable, and Mozilla has a pretty decent income.
If by "intelligent people" you mean corporations.
No, I mean "intelligent people." Corporations are just a legal/economic entity. People have to work to come up with new video compression techniques, etc.
Software patents are stupid and bad for the web.
Why are software patents stupid? Because you say so? Do you think there should be a difference between software and non-software patents? Why?
If someone should choose to spend their intellectual work in developing software, why should they be any less protected than someone who chooses to develop physical products and techniques? You are essentially arguing against innovation in software.
You support h.264 for your reasons (software patents are good, and minuscule performance differences are more important than unencumbered software),
My main reason is much simpler than that - Theora simply isn't implemented in very many places. H.264 is. The performance benefits are just gravy. And I wouldn't say that software patents are "good" - they're just a fact of life, and I don't see why software developers should be discriminated against compared to other types of developers/engineers/inventors/scientists.
It's not even that I "support H.264" - I think a decent Open Source video implementation would be great, but I'm pragmatic, and can see that Theora has practical problems (as does H.264).
I just wish slashdot would discuss these issues rationally, as they do at the W3C, rather than the one-sided fanatacism for anything Open Source.
(I have FOSS to thank for my career and favorite activity, and I think that software patents are stupid).
That's some profound and sophisticated reasoning right there.
But they don't do a particularly great job of it. To deploy in a publishing system, a more serious solution is warranted.
Read the MPEG-4 standard. MPEG LA is totally free to stipulate that licensees implement part 13.
Yeah, so what? Allowing one to implement DRM is not the same as requiring it. It simply doesn't make sense in this context, which is web browsers, and we are mostly talking about content which the authors want to be public, not restricted. Nobody's forcing DRM on you.
Anyway, what's to stop somebody putting a DRM wrapper around Theora?
You contradict yourself. Your original point was "It's not like anybody is suggesting that Windows Media Video should be the baseline standard". You were saying that one was a standard and the other wasn't.
There is a SMPTE standard based on a particular version of WMV. Saying "WMV is a standard" is as nonsensical as saying that Quicktime is a standard, because the MPEG-4 container is based on Quicktime.
In any case, not all standards bodies are equal, and SMPTE is significantly narrower in scope than ISO/IEC.
The issue is that h.264 would end Firefox and enrich a patent cabal (besides damaging the web, imho).
You're going off the deep end here:
You seem to be under the false impression that the goal of the HTML spec is to support Firefox and Open Source agendas in general. It's not.
I know it's heresy around here, but I don't see what's so evil about the patent pool and the MPEG groups. People worked hard to create superior video CODECs. Why shouldn't their work be rewarded? Why should we use inferior technology just to satisfy your ideological agenda? The whole idea of patents is to reward innovation, and that's exactly what they do when used properly. It seems to me that you are saying we should settle for mediocrity because it's "free" and intelligent people who create software and new techniques should not be rewarded for their work.
LaTex is a solution for certain (usually niche) purposes, but has its drawbacks, like everything else. The problem is that we are a dealing with an online world, where things are published in several different formats, online and offline. LaTex doesn't translate easily or cleanly into HTML, or vice-versa. And good luck getting people outside of math and science academia to use LaTex.
This is a real problem, and shouldn't simply be brushed aside with "use this" comments. There currently is no workable format, no Lingua Franca for multipurpose documents. A solution should at least be attempted to make the web, word processing, page layout and typography interoperable.
Don't get me wrong, I actually like LaTex, but it's an exercise in frustration trying to integrate it with the rest of the world.
No, because it is the only free and legal option open to all users and manufacturers.
It may be free, but nobody really knows if it's legal yet, due to the issue of submarine patents.
Theora should be specified.
Why? Because you like it? The HTML spec is not a platform of Open Source evangelism.
They can then add H264 or whatever as well if they wish, but for those who cannot use H264, Theora is a fallback available so that they can meet the standard.
But that means that everybody has to host Theora alongside their higher-quality videos. For content providers, that's not a very attractive option. We'd rather use the standard that is widely adopted in the real world, and only have one file to upload.
What good is a standard if you automatically prevent certain manufacturers from meeting it ?
That's an issue with any standard in the world. There's always going to be somebody who cannot meet a standard, for whatever reason. I haven't seen any evidence that "automatically prevents" Mozilla or Opera from supporting H.264. They just choose not to.
Your same argument also applies to Ogg Theora. It "automatically prevents" Apple and Microsoft from implementing it, because the uncertain legal landscape and risk of litigation.
Oh that's right, it's not about creating a standard, it's about protecting someones IP and profits.
Got any evidence of that? Have you even read the group's mailing list on this topic? There's no evidence of this being done to protect anybody's profits. If you actually read it, it's a very level-headed and intelligent conversation about drafting good standards that will be implemented in the real world. Nobody involved appears to have been compromised by commercial interests.
That means nothing!
Of course it means something. It's a widely-used standard, not a single-vendor proprietary CODEC. It means it's highly interoperable, and in everyday use.
That it is a standard does not mean that it won't be used to smash FOSS and force DRM on everyone.
What the hell does this have to do with DRM?
Man... This "standard" thing is killing me. WMV is a "standard", too (SMPTE 421M). This term is being thrown around, cynically, to muddy the waters.
You're upset because people are using the word "standards" to describe things that are actually standards? That's bizarre. It's not as if the Open Source community is the only one with the right to define standards.
The problem here is that people are throwing around the word "proprietary" in a way that is essentially meaningless.
Yes, but it's a single use battery, so when your 1500 hours are up, you have to buy a new phone.
I was going to suggest Desert Bus, but they already made Speed, so I guess Hollywood beat me to it.
Up this year, Wall-E last year.
But you explicitly said that you based your decision on "not being part of the herd". I hear that breathing is pretty popular among "the herd" too, perhaps you should try not breathing for a change?
Your "popular doesn't mean good" argument also has corollaries. By the same token, popular does not equal "bad" and unpopular does not equal "good."
You use of the phrase "the herd" also implies that people who choose the popular option do it unthinkingly, that they don't "conduct their own tests and make their own decisions." But, of course, many people do that and make the decision to use the popular item.
I just found your comment amusing, because it reminds me of the "individualists" who flock to subcultures in an effort to become "alternative" - but as soon as their subculture/music/fashion becomes popular they don't like it anymore. They tend to be worse fashion victims and conformists than those in the mainstream, all the while maintaining that they are unique and beholden to nobody. I mean, why did you like that music in the first place? Isn't it still good music if it suddenly becomes a popular hit?
Google, Opera and Mozilla won't support anything that puts them at risk of needing to pay royalties on the huge number of free downloads they give away.
Except, of course, that Google does pay the royalties, and is objecting to Ogg Theora for the Youtube service, arguing for H.264 instead. Of course, you didn't read the article or do any research before you spouted off, did you?
Your arguments against ogg theora would apply just as well to ogg vorbis...
No they wouldn't. The video CODEC field is much more heavily contested by patents and patent trolls than the audio field. Vorbis has pretty much been shown to be in the clear, while Theora hasn't. It's a valid issue. And patents aren't the only issue - there are technical and performance reasons too.
The W3C needs to ignore everyone and push forward with Ogg support in the spec.
But why should it be Ogg and not H.264 that they push through? Because you like it?
Besides, standards bodies that "ignore everybody" won't get too far. It's much easier for everybody to ignore them.
B) refusing to implement because doing so would make it harder for a company to lock people into proprietary formats
But nobody is doing that. It's not like anybody is suggesting that Windows Media Video should be the baseline standard. The argument is over Ogg versus H.264, which is an ISO/IEC standard.
Are you serious? YouTube rejecting Theora for quality issues? Have you been to YouTube recently? YouTube doesn't seem to give the slightest care about video quality.
That's because you're looking at horrible flash video. If you download the H.264 version, they look much better.
See, this is something that open source accomplishes that stupid fucking arrogant businesses will never get. When something is obsolete or no longer needed, it gets ditched or replaced by something better.
What the fuck are you referring to here? This article is about Ogg Theora vs H.264. In this case, H.264 is the more sophisticated, "better" technology, while the Open Source option is the more primitive.