Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

HTML5

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-27 22:31

What do you guys think of the HTML 5 language? I can't wait to use the video tag. I hope all the places that use flash convert over to this and Adobe shrivels up into a little ball and dies.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-27 22:35

Wishful thinking.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-27 22:36

HTML 5 language
2/10

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-27 22:46

http://tinyvid.tv/ uses it.

it doesn't work in chrome.
it's a pain to use in firefox.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-27 22:56

Wait until Adobe gets their way and makes EOT the only standard. It will happen and there's nothing we can do to prevent it.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-27 23:30

The video tag does nothing that plugins couldn't already do; case in point, Adobe Flash. That Flash is a insecure and poorly written unportable pile of browser crashing, cpu-sucking bugs is beside the point. Adding a dedicated tag doesn't change anything, especially when you aren't even given a single guarantee of available decoders.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-27 23:43

>>3
Actually, HTML is rightly classified as a "language."

I guess you're a PHP programmer, and not a Computer Scientist.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 0:09

>>2
Even if it happens, things will still suck.

>>5
EOT? End of transmission?

>>7
I guess you're unaware of what HTML stands for. Why the fuck would you call it "HTML 5 language"?

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 0:37

>>8
If you don't know what this piece of DRM retardedness is, you're unaware of what how much of a shithole HTML is gonna be.

http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/2008/09/web_fonts_2.html
Note: this is what web developers actually believe.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 1:20

>>9
You're right, that's completely retarded. The internet is only going downhill from now on, so what did you expect?

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 4:00

>>10
DRM retardedness
Lets face it, proprietary things being standardized is the only way for the web to progress. ECMAScript? XMLHR? Canvas? innerHTML? SVG? Favicon? Cookies? Yes, they are all the product of "patented" technology being standardized, and the entire web is based around them (Canvas is a notable exception but watch this space). Now lets see what "standards" the open sores community has come up with. Ogg Vorbis? MNG? Hell, the only website I know that uses either of these is Wikipedia for the shitty embedded videos, which is a questionable real world "use" because nobody has ever actually found a reliable way to view them.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 4:26

>>11
Vorbis ... video
I don't think so.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 4:30

>>12
Ogg rather, though it applies to the audio clips equally.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 9:15

>>11
Too obvious. Leave out favicons next time, and don't mention MNG. People know about PNG.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 9:24

>>11
EOT = OTF + obfuscation.

All the commercial foundries are debating about the best for of DRM, because they are way too dumb to figure out that they could just host the fonts on a CDN and sell websites right to have their referrer whitelisted.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 13:05

I don't care about EOT as long as it doesn't have license fees. It can be deobfuscated in 10 lines of code, and you don't even need an external key or anything like that. If it keeps the retarded suits happy, I'm all for it.

The other option is not using all these fonts at all - I'd rather steal them using wget+deobfuscate than having to hunt rapidshares or torrents for them. In any case it sure beats text as images or Flash objects, which is what you're getting now.

Also: PDF already uses obfuscation when embedding fonts. Nobody has died because of it, and I don't really see much complaints because people just don't care. (On the other hand I find the lack of free, OSS PDF unlockers rather disturbing)

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 13:11

>>16
Ripped web-fonts would not be very useful anyway, even if you deobfuscate them(it's just a simple xor encryption with constant key), because they're stripped fonts, so they lack the full charset. I don't see any reason to even obfuscate them since they lack the entire charset, but I think the reason MS did it was because of legal reasons(which is strange as the encryption is documented and someone doesn't even have to reverse engineer it, to be able to create something which reads or deobfuscates the fonts).

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 13:27

>>17
The "obfuscation" is there so you can't just use them directly. It's like a "copyright bit", to indicate clearly that you can't use them. They also include a list of allowed domains so you can't just use it for another page - that's the "restrictive" part.

If you think about it it's just like the protection on DVDs and the like - it's obvious it just can't work, but at least they're being honest about it. For some reason the font foundries are happy with a system like this (just like the movie studios are with DVDs and friends).

They do support stripping, but so does any font format (duh!), but in practice I doubt it'll be used much (except on fonts with multiple character sets) because it's a huge hassle (you'd need an automated system which detects what characters are in use and rebuilt as necessary - far too much ENTERPRISE for your average web site).

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 14:33

>>16
(On the other hand I find the lack of free, OSS PDF unlockers rather disturbing)
/* This patch is free software.  You should have received a copy of the
   
/prog/ HMAPL along with this patch.  If not, hax <my anus>. */
--- xpdf-3.02.orig/xpdf/XRef.cc    2007-02-27 16:05:52.000000000 -0600
+++ xpdf-3.02/xpdf/XRef.cc    2007-08-30 10:16:47.000000000 -0500
@@ -771,19 +771,19 @@
 }
 
 GBool XRef::okToPrint(GBool ignoreOwnerPW) {
-  return (!ignoreOwnerPW && ownerPasswordOk) || (permFlags & permPrint);
+  return true;
 }
 
 GBool XRef::okToChange(GBool ignoreOwnerPW) {
-  return (!ignoreOwnerPW && ownerPasswordOk) || (permFlags & permChange);
+  return true;
 }
 
 GBool XRef::okToCopy(GBool ignoreOwnerPW) {
-  return (!ignoreOwnerPW && ownerPasswordOk) || (permFlags & permCopy);
+  return true;
 }
 
 GBool XRef::okToAddNotes(GBool ignoreOwnerPW) {
-  return (!ignoreOwnerPW && ownerPasswordOk) || (permFlags & permNotes);
+  return true;
 }
 
 Object *XRef::fetch(int num, int gen, Object *obj) {

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 14:40

>>19
You could go to jail for that and have your anus haxed for real.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 14:44

Just use SVG fonts - all the good browsers support it.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 14:48

>>21
The same browsers which support TTF/OTF. Ergo your wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 15:17

>>22
Actually, a superset of the browsers that support SVG fonts support TTF/OTF. The reasons to wilfully not support such crappy browsers should be obvious.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 15:19

It's really easy to predict what's gonna happen. It's already started actually.

The next version of every browser that matters supports proper embed.

Most foundries will continue to disallow any form of embed. They'll spend tons of time C&Ding kids stealing their fantasy and handwriting faces for their personal pages.
A few hipster foundries will say they're cool with EOT, but not with normal import.
While the w3c will eventually bow down and make EOT a standard, it will take at least 3 more years. Good luck getting Webkit and Opera to play along until then.

Then a few guys making shitty useless fantasy fonts but who understand how the world works will license their fonts for normal embed, and they will release a few new ones for free. Every blog in the world will post about it and post a code example that will be posted all over the world.

For a year, the whole web will be filled with every Larabie font ever. It will be so bad, everyone will ask how to turn off font embed. No browser will want to add support for EOT after that debacle.

Then serious foundries will be forced to either allow embed, or take a serious hit in sales. Since it's legal to make almost identical copies of fonts so long as the name differs, people will just go all Arial on the ones that don't start allowing embed fast enough.

In the end everybody somewhat kind of wins.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 15:22

>>24
What the hell is a ``fantasy face/font''?

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 15:27

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 15:40

>>26
I will, actually. There's a billion atrocious websites that I'm never going to visit out there already, what's a few more gonna do?

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 16:02

>>26
I will, along with my cake

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 16:09

>>26
We must work to stop font embedding!!

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 16:45

there is little reason to NOT use Flash for everything. come on Flash sites are so much much better than html ones. nicer and easier to use.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 17:00

>>30
This is what idiots actually believe

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 17:14

>>31
YHBT

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 17:32

>>30
4/10. If you want to use this style, you need to be even less subtle. But even then you'll never get more than a 5/10 if you merely provide annoyance. You should learn the local style instead.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 18:53

The video tag is a good first step. The next step is to standardize around FLV for embedded videos, since everyone has the Flash Player already anyway.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 19:18

>>34
Then it is true; I am the last. Fuck flash!!

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 19:37

>>34
standardize around FLV
Oh no you don't.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 20:10

>>36
Well, at least FLV is a much better container than that OGG/OGM abortion will ever be. Look at what they had to do to be able to seek with decent performance:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/04/media_cache.html
That retarded trash needs to perform a fucking binary search over the file, looking for anything that resembles a packet header containing a timestamp. I already knew it sucked badly when seeking from optical media took several seconds; over the network it takes dozens - and the media cache won't save you until after the first few seeks, or after the whole thing is loaded already.

Fun fact: even VBR MP3 files (generally) behave better than this. They don't even have any structure to speak of, but at least somebody though about putting an index in there.

Of all of AVI, MP4, MKV, WMV, FLV and OGM, the latter is clearly the worst of them (AVI does lack true frame reordering and variable framerate support, but at least does well what it was designed to do). I don't know about RMVB, but it's probable better too, because you have to actually try really hard to match OGG's stupidity.

These people are only good for designing audio codecs. For everything else, you're in for some nasty surprises, not to mention typical freetard FUD.

Fortunately only Wikipedia will ever use this.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 20:35

>>34
Too bad Flash has already standardized around mp4/H.264/AAC.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 21:13

>>38
It's not just Flash. The combination you just mentioned will work out of the box on any of:

* Windows 7
* Mac OS X (any recent version)
* Safari's <video> support (it uses QuickTime, see previous point)
* All decent media players (MPlayer, MPC-HC) and some that aren't (VLC)
* Nero Digital (both hardware devices and the codecs they install along with Nero)
* DivX 7 (see "Nero Digital", albeit these are using MKV instead of MP4, but I don't think any hardware will ship without MP4 support)
* Infinity of handheld devices (iPhone, iPod, iShit, modern phones, PSP, modern portable media players...)
* Your fucking video card, if it's actually a video card (not from Intel) and has been made in the last few years
* Your fucking video card, even if it's trash (from Intel) as long as it has been made in the last few months
* A plugin that is already running in your browser (Flash or the sodding QuickTime shit)

Good luck fighting that!

Also it's my understanding software targeting W7 or OSX can use the OS decoders for free, in all the senses of the word.

I'm glad this has been adopted as the new de-facto standard: it also happens to offer the best compression/quality ratio available today, as well as many extremely high quality implementations. It's hard to ask for more, and it's a rare occasion where the very best has won.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 21:21

I'm kind of rooting for Dirac, but it's still too young. It requires a lot of tweaking, and they need both encoders and decoders that won't use a jizzilion hectocycles per frame.
If the codec received the kind of love and attention that Xvid or x264 has had, I think Dirac + Vorbis in Matroska could be a winner.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 21:28

>>40
It could be competitive (as opposed to embarrassing, see Theora), but there's no way it would even approach the level of quality you get out of h.264. Not even close.

Designing a video codec with "dodge patents" as an objective is a losing proposition.

See also http://www.openmediacommons.org/ for Sun's trick pony on this race - it looks better than Theora (on paper), yet for some reason nobody seemed to notice its existence.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 22:20

>>41
You may be right (Supposing you mean quality for low-bandwidth usage), but it's hardly a given.
And BBC differs from Sun in that they're actually a heavy user of codecs, being a major producer and distributor of various forms of media. If they decide to use Dirac Pro/Dirac internally, people will notice, and you'll see hardware and software supporting it in the professional market.
Getting Dirac Pro accepted as VC-2 won't hurt either.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-28 22:53

>>39
Back to /r9k/, please.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 1:16

>>19
I just compiled Xpdf... And got several thousand compiler warnings. Why can't those GNU idiots write code properly?

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 3:53

>>41
If you're serious about your video and need good compression, you'll use H.264, but Theora is good enough for game developers which don't want to pay royaltees, and it's better than MPEG1 or MPEG2. They can afford to double the video filesize(and bitrate) so they could get about the same quality as you'd have at half the size. It's not that bad of a bargain. There's considerably shittier codecs out there compared to Theora that game companies pay money to license because it costs less than H.264 and offers a worse compression, but still good enough for their needs( would reach nearly the same quality at 1.5-3 times the size ).

For everybody else, there's H.264

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 4:21

>>44
They are idiots

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 4:29

>>1
Adobe will never die, and it's all thanks to GNU. If only they had real competition for Photoshop, they wouldn't be able able to continue to exist in their current form.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 4:45

>>47
Photoshop shouldn't die, through all their flaws and bloat, Adobe really does steal the show with Photoshop, there is simply nothing else like it. Lets face it, no matter how many perl scripting engines and gaussian blur algorithms they add to GIMP it will still be the ugliest abortion the open source community has ever managed to shit out its ass.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 5:16

That's what I meant. It would be really hard for an open-source alternative to gain traction because of how horrible their GNU neigbhor is.
Tons of idiots would be going "why don't you fork the gimp instead", whiners would use the open-source fallacy "if you don't like the GIMP just fix it", and a steady stream of artless aspies would submit patches that ruin the artists' workflow.

But Photoshop really needs a serious competitor that starts out as a clone. I've started using Photoshop with version 3 in 1995, and it was already way better than today's gimp. Fuck, even paint.net is ten times more useful than the gimp, and it's only 5 years old and started out as a CS senior project.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 5:36

>>49
It should be said, however, that the GIMP is not Photoshop and in many ways it isn't trying to be. As far as I can see, the majority of people bitching about the GIMP are just pissed it's not a byte for byte replica for free (lower case). My advice is, if you need Photoshop, use Photoshop, and just leave the GIMP developers to see what they come up with. I'm sure we'd see a much more interesting (and useful?) GIMP that way.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 6:08

>>50
If they did not come up with something that any real artist (the five people who make lunix icons or HDR photos of their CPU aren't artists) has found worth using in 15 years, maybe it's time to give up.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 6:20

>>51
Actually, GIMP doesn't support HDR.1
_______
References:
1. http://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#16bit

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 6:26

>>51
It's not as if the GIMP hasn't produced anything useful in that 15 years. We got GTK+ (granted it's horrible but still useful) and the GIMP itself has enough features for the average person. The usability is a whole different matter, but is largely a question of time getting used to it. Besides, if the GIMP gave up, I doubt anyone else would try and fill that niche.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 6:28

>>53
ONE WORD: THE FORCED NO-MDI-ATION OF WINDOWS

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 6:28

>>52
Too bad it doesn't support importing photos by talented photographers, or making drawings that look good.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 6:31

>>54
The have a reason for that, read the FAQ

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 6:33

>>55
The have a reason for that, watch the average user.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 6:39

>>56
From the FAQ it looks like they don't even have a polygonal lasso‽ What the fuck, this is among the tools I use almost everytime I use PS.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 12:33

>>56
Theyre a bunch of assholes

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 13:15

>>59
It's open-source, why don't you fork it instead of whining?

Name: RMS Mike Shuttleworth 2009-05-29 13:25

s/open-source/Free Software/g;

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 13:51

>>60
NICE TRY TROLL

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 13:56

>>58
Just use the Paths Tool and the Path To Selection button

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 14:26

>>62
My troll was CC-BY-NC, why don't you improve it instead of making a sarcasm?

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 14:32

>>64
Trolls should be placed in the public domain, asking for attribution when trolling is just stupid

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 14:43

>>65
Just as stupid as asking for contribution when writing software

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 16:17


# This troll is free; you can redistribute it and/or modify
# under the terms of the Trolling General Public License as published by
# the Free Troll Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
# (at your option) any later version.

# This troll is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
# Trolling General Public License for more details.

# You should have received a copy of the Trolling General Public License
# along with this troll; if not, write to the Free Troll  
# Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307  USA


HAX YOU'RE ANUS

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 16:19

>>65
YHBT

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 16:36

>>63
Now you have three problems

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 17:10

>>67
What about ``my are anus''?

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 17:20

>>70
my're anus?

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-29 17:42

# This troll is free; you can redistribute it and/or modify
# under the terms of the Trolling General Public License as published by
# the Free Troll Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
# (at your option) any later version.

# This troll is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
# Trolling General Public License for more details.

# You should have received a copy of the Trolling General Public License
# along with this troll; if not, write to the Free Troll  
# Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307  USA


>>70
STOP RIGHT THERE, CRIMINAL SCUM!

All derivative works must be licensed under the TGPL.  Take you‘re nonFree shit back to MicroTroll.

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-06 9:29

Back to /b/, ``GNAA Faggot''

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-21 23:20

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-31 20:20

<-- check em dubz

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List