Multiple cameras can't cover the same area, and are likely more expensive. Thieves will surely be more mindful of cameras as well, and dodge their view area.
You think that taking away the option of choice because you may have unexpected bugs valid?
Those bugs are actually expected, and you're still forgetting that implementing all this is no easy job, using resources that are better spent elsewhere. Why spend double the effort on one feature, anyway?
You think that 40% of the Windows users is too small of an installed base?
Where the heck are you getting 40% from? By now it's more like 20%.
Good heavens I make of it what it is. The death of Firefox.
You keep on believing that silly joke despite all the evidence that goes against it. Do you specialise in trolling? It sure looks like it. This will be my last reply. You can have the last word.
That word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Wrong.
That's a fascinating counter-point you've got there.
Subjective horseshit. You could say that anything is "underspecified"
Cop-out argument.
Content providers will use good codecs. DUH.
You do know that there is more than one implementation of a codec standard, right?
Many plugins are malware too. Pick a theory and stick with it.
Apples and oranges. The plug-in infrastructure is controlled by the browser. But they have no control over the OS' media framework. One exception is Apple's Safari, which has control over QuickTime. They made a couple changes when they introduced web video. The linked weblog entry even tells you this.
FLASH is a giant security hole. Arent you going to remove FLASH support?
There's no Flash support. There's plug-in support, and Flash is a plug-in. Furthermore, Firefox doesn't ship with Flash, so it's not like it's encouraged.
Instead of interfacing with existing decoders, which we think is too hard, we are going to maintain our own decoder.. which any coder will note is obviously harder.. but we wont mention that because most people who read this arent programmers.
Yeah, let's conveniently forget that there are is more than one operating system out there with their own media frameworks that have their own quirks and problems that have to be maintained.
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.
They don't need to, because variable quality of DirectShow codecs is pretty much a given.
Does the microsoft H.264 codec support what they need? Yes or no?
Even if we were to assume that it did, that wouldn't solve its small installed base.
Not worth the problems? What a load of garbage.
And where is your example and argument for why this is a load of garbage?
So not pull javascript support out of Mozilla? I mean that causes a lot of bugs as well.
It would break a lot on the web as it is a feature that is widely used. In this case it wouldn't be worth it. It's also a different case because the support is already there instead of waiting to be added.
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.
It's still a valid problem to consider when adding support, and one that's non-trivial to work around.
Nobody suggested that CODEC's would ship with Firefox.
It's what is being done now, and it's the best option, hence why we're talking about it.
You hate H.264. Dont try to convince us that this is about some grand Free and Open slant.. when clearly you are just picking and choosing what non-Free and non-Open shit to ostracize.
Sorry, but you're just wrong and can't seem to accept that we have reasons other than 'hate'.
Why should Firefox support FLASH but not a CODEC? Both are DLL's provided by the end user. Period. Thats it.
You'll never understand as long as you don't look at the bigger picture. Using DirectShow/QuickTime/GStreamer is not an option for several reasons that have been repeated time and again, so we're down to shipping the codec.
Windows 7 is growing in percentage very quickly. Even so isn't giving x% of user the ability tp watch h264 better than zero?
It's not worth the maintenance headaches at this point.
Really so you will have problems with getting h264 under windows 7 working with the microsoft codec?
I some how doubt it.
You're not presenting a counter-argument, but FUD.
So does Firefox currently prevent that? I don't think so.
How do you propose that Firefox prevents the download and installation of malware? Does Firefox also need to be a malware scanner now?
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.
Microsoft isn't the only one to offer a H.264 codec.
Every OS right now has a framework for video codecs why not use them?
You just read the reasons why not.
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.
The problems will still exist, and they will be blamed on Firefox. The maintenance will still be a disaster.
What is going to happen is very simple. If Firefox will not play the content you want on the web then users will move.
Again, you're funny. Refer to my other comment in reply to yours that you're conveniently forgetting about.
There is no difference between FLASH doing it and a CODEC doing it. They are BOTH proprietary binary DLL's and H.264 carries the same restrictions and fees in both cases.
You forgot that Flash is a plug-in that doesn't ship with Firefox. Furthermore, it doesn't explicitly support Flash, just the Netscape plug-in infrastructure. Apples and oranges.
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.
When they say they can't use it, they mean they can't ship it with their web browser.
Firefox can implement h.264 they have chose not to to make a political statement!
Here you make the mistake again. There's a difference between "implement" and "support". Implementing H.264 would mean shipping code that decodes it. Supporting it would mean the former or using codecs installed on the system.
They have never said they can't leverage the installed codecs. They've said it's not the way to go for several reasons.
Firefox loads *many* proprietary DLL's on Windows systems (and the OS/X equivs) in order to render web content.
You've turned it into a religion ONLY in the case of CODECS. Why are CODECS special?
It doesn't matter that Firefox uses proprietary DLLs to render web content, because there are no restrictions or fees on its use. That is the difference. As soon as you use the H.264 codec to create or render content, you have to pay royalties.
This is actually a bad thing. GeoCities gave you a place to put your content and have complete control over it. No dumb blog software to get in your way. It was your creative outlet.
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.
Important politics. They want an open web. Supporting web video through a proprietary codec goes against that goal. It amazes me how many miss that point.
But it doesn't need to. For one, all you have to do is be "good enough".
Yet a lot of people spit on Theora despite it being good enough for web video. It isn't significantly worse than AVC.
Personally I prefer Theora because a lot of open source effort has gone into it already and it's very fast to decode. This opens web video to a very wide range of devices.
Not everyone has a wireless network at home, and if they do, they may not want to open it up just like you for good reasons. The dongle is there to address both of these issues as it creates a hotspot that only Wii and DS systems you authorise can connect to.
Unfortunately, drivers can be a problem. A friend of mine can no longer play online with his Nintendo DS because the Wifi hotspot dongle that Nintendo sells has no drivers for Windows 7.
There's an increasing tendency to put everything in the web browser, making it the Jack of all trades. What's the point of putting audiovisual recording in the web browser? Why can't the user just use their own recording software and upload the result using the ubiquitous (sp?) file upload form control?
My problem with game prices is the difference between US and EU prices. We usually pay in euros what you guys pay in dollars, so we pay much more (even if you take into account that the EU price does include sales tax).
Different economies. You can't compare the prices.
Slashdot Mirror
Multiple cameras can't cover the same area, and are likely more expensive. Thieves will surely be more mindful of cameras as well, and dodge their view area.
At any rate, these robots sound awesome!
Isn't that why he's using NoScript?
Steve Ballmer, is that you?
Those bugs are actually expected, and you're still forgetting that implementing all this is no easy job, using resources that are better spent elsewhere. Why spend double the effort on one feature, anyway?
Where the heck are you getting 40% from? By now it's more like 20%.
You keep on believing that silly joke despite all the evidence that goes against it. Do you specialise in trolling? It sure looks like it. This will be my last reply. You can have the last word.
That word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
That's a fascinating counter-point you've got there.
Cop-out argument.
You do know that there is more than one implementation of a codec standard, right?
Apples and oranges. The plug-in infrastructure is controlled by the browser. But they have no control over the OS' media framework. One exception is Apple's Safari, which has control over QuickTime. They made a couple changes when they introduced web video. The linked weblog entry even tells you this.
There's no Flash support. There's plug-in support, and Flash is a plug-in. Furthermore, Firefox doesn't ship with Flash, so it's not like it's encouraged.
Yeah, let's conveniently forget that there are is more than one operating system out there with their own media frameworks that have their own quirks and problems that have to be maintained.
Over time does not equal now or in one year.
I already explained this.
QuickTime is not part of the Windows OS, so you can't count on it being installed.
Make of it what you will.
They don't need to, because variable quality of DirectShow codecs is pretty much a given.
Even if we were to assume that it did, that wouldn't solve its small installed base.
And where is your example and argument for why this is a load of garbage?
It would break a lot on the web as it is a feature that is widely used. In this case it wouldn't be worth it. It's also a different case because the support is already there instead of waiting to be added.
It's still a valid problem to consider when adding support, and one that's non-trivial to work around.
It's what is being done now, and it's the best option, hence why we're talking about it.
Sorry, but you're just wrong and can't seem to accept that we have reasons other than 'hate'.
You'll never understand as long as you don't look at the bigger picture. Using DirectShow/QuickTime/GStreamer is not an option for several reasons that have been repeated time and again, so we're down to shipping the codec.
It's not worth the maintenance headaches at this point.
You're not presenting a counter-argument, but FUD.
How do you propose that Firefox prevents the download and installation of malware? Does Firefox also need to be a malware scanner now?
Microsoft isn't the only one to offer a H.264 codec.
You just read the reasons why not.
The problems will still exist, and they will be blamed on Firefox. The maintenance will still be a disaster.
Again, you're funny. Refer to my other comment in reply to yours that you're conveniently forgetting about.
You forgot that Flash is a plug-in that doesn't ship with Firefox. Furthermore, it doesn't explicitly support Flash, just the Netscape plug-in infrastructure. Apples and oranges.
You're funny. It's not like web browsers are only used for video. Furthermore, the world's most popular web video site is moving to WebM, not H.264.
When they say they can't use it, they mean they can't ship it with their web browser.
Here you make the mistake again. There's a difference between "implement" and "support". Implementing H.264 would mean shipping code that decodes it. Supporting it would mean the former or using codecs installed on the system.
They have never said they can't leverage the installed codecs. They've said it's not the way to go for several reasons.
It doesn't matter that Firefox uses proprietary DLLs to render web content, because there are no restrictions or fees on its use. That is the difference. As soon as you use the H.264 codec to create or render content, you have to pay royalties.
This is actually a bad thing. GeoCities gave you a place to put your content and have complete control over it. No dumb blog software to get in your way. It was your creative outlet.
Important politics. They want an open web. Supporting web video through a proprietary codec goes against that goal. It amazes me how many miss that point.
Yet a lot of people spit on Theora despite it being good enough for web video. It isn't significantly worse than AVC.
Personally I prefer Theora because a lot of open source effort has gone into it already and it's very fast to decode. This opens web video to a very wide range of devices.
Fuck you and your stupid notion of only keeping what's new and shiny.
Yes, that's it. It plugs into a USB port.
Not everyone has a wireless network at home, and if they do, they may not want to open it up just like you for good reasons. The dongle is there to address both of these issues as it creates a hotspot that only Wii and DS systems you authorise can connect to.
Unfortunately, drivers can be a problem. A friend of mine can no longer play online with his Nintendo DS because the Wifi hotspot dongle that Nintendo sells has no drivers for Windows 7.
...It does. Damn it.
Fuck NoScript. FlashBlock is all you need.
There's an increasing tendency to put everything in the web browser, making it the Jack of all trades. What's the point of putting audiovisual recording in the web browser? Why can't the user just use their own recording software and upload the result using the ubiquitous (sp?) file upload form control?
Now if only people would understand why Firefox can't support proprietary codecs - nah, there's not enough intelligence for that.
Different economies. You can't compare the prices.