Firefox may support H264 after all
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
I guess they are giving in to pressure after all: http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2012/03/18/video-user-experience-and-our-mission/1234/
I can't edit my original post so here is another link supporting my original: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-web/
I am a translator!
H.264 isn't going away anytime soon since unlike WebM it can be decoded via GPU.
Mozilla wishes to expand its browser's market share on mobile devices which rely on video decoding via GPU, so they must support H.264 via HTML5 on their mobile versions, since they cannot support it via the Adobe Flash plugin as Adobe dropped Flash on mobile devices (primarily due to Apple refusing to ship Flash on their mobile devices).
Mozilla cannot rely on Adobe to provide its plugin to desktop users either as they are dropping support for GNU/Linux users, so by providing H.264 via HTML5 Mozilla's desktop users will be able to playback high definition online content via GPU if their GPU supports it.
I am a member!
Mozilla should drop "support" for Adobe Flash on Microsoft Windows as Adobe has done for GNU/Linux.
There would probably be a fight given that it isn't Mozilla that is supporting it exactly. Mozilla blocking the plug-in and treating it as malicious (which it is) on each update would put a dent into Adobe's business though.
It would end up an instantly dead format give that Apple has already dropped support on its devices (non-desktop).
I am a translator!
I'd love to see that, the Windows version of Firefox reporting Flash as a spyware and forcing the user to remove it and never install it again.
I am a translator!
Mozilla does support Adobe Flash - if you visit a website that requires Flash on FireFox and you don't have it installed Mozilla recommends the non-free Flash plugin (and not Gnash).
I am a member!
I don't think you understood what I was saying or what is happening. Let me provide additional information.
Adobe has said they are dropping support for the netscape plug-in system that all the browsers use except for Microsoft Windows.
Mozilla has said they won't be implementing this new plug-in system which Google and Adobe are teaming up on.
As a result Adobe has decided to continue supporting the old netscape plug-in system on Microsoft Windows. However they won't be doing this for GNU/Linux.
As a result of this GNU/Linux users who wish to use Adobe Flash must install Chrome.
Depending on how you look at it this isn't as bad as what Oracle did with the non-free version of java. In that case Oracle discontinued lucensing which allowed for distributions to include the software in their repositories. This also made it possible to provide users security updates.
Adobe has said they will continue to release security updates for Adobe Flash 11 to GNU/Linux users who have a browser with the old netscape plug-in architecture.
Conclusion: In reality the results of this are Mozilla Firefox GNU/Linux users who use Adobe Flash will quickly become unable to access flash heavy web sites. If Adobe Flash is important to you there will be a solution if you don't have an issue with switching to Chrome.
We don't know if other browsers will implement Chrome's new plug-in system. We also don't know what the licensing restrictions will be. It may be distributions will be prohibited from including Adobe Flash without Chrome. Adobe has said they will not be releasing new versions of Adobe Flash separately from Google Chrome on GNU/Linux. I'll be shocked if non-free GNU/Linux distributions ship with Firefox once Adobe Flash 12 is released.
This makes H.264 a bit tricky in certain countries:
So how would this work with Abrowser and IceCat? Do they look for Gstreamer or libavcodec on the system and use them? Or do they continue to block entirely? I say this becuase the Gnash browser plugin will recommend and install the Gstreamer libraries for the MPEG4 container and the codecs it tends to use.
This is scary times becuase Mozilla said they cannnot survive on the mobile market without supporting H264. Even in the last few days there have been discussions that WebM is pretty much a failure due to lukewarm support by Google in both hardware support and encoding tools. Google even said they were going to remove H264 a long time ago but have still yet to pull the plug.
I am a translator!
Abrowser uses Gnash which requires Gstreamer and libavcodec (just type "aptitude show gnash-common" in the terminal to see all the dependencies).
The default install of the current Trisquel decodes H264. There is no reason for Trisquel not to ship a Web browser that would read it.
Remember that H264 raises patent threats: in the future, the developers of a free codec may go into legal troubles and a distributor may not be allowed to ship it. That is why it is preferable to not rely on such formats and use patent-unencumbered codecs such as that of WebM or Theora. However, this does not have anything to do with copyright and a free software implementation of a codec... well, is free software!
I am a member!
There's some pretty heavy misunderstanding about this story (not necessarily here but elsewhere on the web). Mozilla won't actually be licensing any patents; it's just going to use OS-level or hardware-level decoding where available.
Can't say I blame them, honestly. I'm not even too worried about it. What concerns me more is the "desktop's dead, mobile is all that matters" theme that they're inflicted with, possibly from the same contagion that gave them the "let's just go along with whatever chromium does" sickness.
Its not just the developers, but the media has jumped on it as well. Attention has definitely focused to mobile as they think of a desktop or laptop as cumbersome and not needed. Even Microsoft knows this and why they are pushing Windows 8 on the tablet so hard.
I even saw an article about some banking app (I think it was Charles Schwab) where this woman was talking about "in the old days" she would have to be glued to her computer to login to the website when now she can get everything instantly on the go on her iPhone. I think another reference was made that she could spend more time with her kids or would be out with friends and could check her stocks without having to ask for a laptop. Of course this was an advertisement for their iPhone but also shows how obsessed people are with their cell phones for instant gratification and at the same time viewing a traditional computer as an outdated piece of technology.
EDIT: As for your Chromium reference, I've seen Mozilla trying to copy them as they are scared. I'll be honest... I prefer the speed and interface of Chromium more but you guys say some of the licensing is sketchy and would only use a totally non free version. Speaking of... what happened to that project on these boards to identify the non-free or unclear licensing of Chromium?
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios