Adobe is lazy

Proof that Adobe programmers are lazy as fuck.

http://flashcrash.dempsky.org/

http://mugtug.com/sketchpad/

Behold!

>>41
That's some impressive use of Javascript.

http://jilion.com/sublime/video

Behold again, (I cant get it to work on my 3 browsers!)!

still not fixed

Flash seriously needs to die. Hurry up with HTML 5 adoption, god damn it!

>>45
HTML 5 is an enemy of your freedom

>>46
Your freedom is the enemy of HTML 5

>>47
Your enemy is the freedom of HTML 5

>>48

Your HTML 5 is the freedom of enemy

>>46
How so? It's a fucking open standard!

>>50
Theora is not being used

>>51
Really? That's fucked up. Why don't I hear RMS trolling the W3C about this?

>>51,52
Actually, W3C is not recommending anything specific for video anything because there is no consensus amongst the major browser implementations. It's up to the browser to figure out how to display the video tag.

>>52
RMS has already written a couple of essays about this. I could be arsed to find them now.

>>49
it cant be worse then flash can it?

>>51
Too bad Theora is not that good technically, and most people that use it use it only so they don't have to pay patent royaltees to MPEG.
I expect the video tag to support H264 and AAC audio in MP4 as a minimum. I would rather not have it support flash video though. MKV, Vorbis and AC3 support would also be nice, but I have my doubts they'll include it. Couldn't care less about AVI or MP3, but MP3 has been supported in a lot of browsers anyway.
This is a bit offtopic, but you guys know that technically IE has supported all these formats before they even existed? by allowing ActiveX controls, and they had one for DirectShow players, and for dshow, the user could have any numbers of filters/splitters/decoders installed, which would play the content seamlessly. Of course, this is all terribly insecure, but not that much more than having a browser support a few dozen video/audio/container formats - one is bound to have some vulnerabilities anyway.

>>55
This is a bit offtopic, but you guys know that technically IE has supported all these formats before they even existed?
Yeah, well Netscape supported the <embed> tag before HTML even existed!

>>55 "vulnerabilities"
just keep running your executables as root

>>55
only so they don't have to pay patent royaltees to MPEG
Can you blame them? The license costs five million dollars.

If a free software uses a license that costs 5million its not free for me.

>>59
Except nobody gives a fuck about software patents. H.264 patents are being broken daily by millions of people, however if you're for example, a game developer in the US, Theora is an alternative to cut costs, however serious game developers would have the money to pay the roytaltees anyway (some 2500$ or so).

I guess if FF went with theora there'd just be an addon for H.264.

>>58
I don't think it's that expensive. I think Mozilla made up this number. It's really only a couple thousand. 0/10 kill yourself

>>62
The amount that gets charged varies depends on intended use and audience size, it's not inconceivable that they could charge Mozilla in the millions.

>>60
Nobody except for high profile AND upstanding members of society such as Mozilla and Opera. Only people who live hidden lives disregard issues such as these patents. Our fight is for the upstanding members of society that want to be free.

>Except nobody gives a fuck about software patents
people outside your basement.

>>64,65
This.

I'll just stick with Dirac. It'll be on par with H.246 some day. Possibly, maybe. Maybe even some years before the patents run out, or software patents are scrapped for good.

>>60
If they go after the companies who write patent-infringing software and not the users, there's nothing stopping someone from writing some implementation and releasing it anonymously.

>>68
That doesn't stop the fact that they can still go after companies that use patent-infringing software if they catch someone.

>>66
IHBT

>>68
There's no need to release it anonymously. FFMPEG(and derived software) and x264 contain GPLed software decoders and encoders for H.264. Nobody sued them as there is no commercial interest there. Another thing worth mentioning is that some broadcasters and VOD guys actually use their software, but they pay royaltees.

>>64-66
Most people using mplayer, Media Player Classic and many other media players which support H.264 and are open sourced don't pay any royaltees, and most of them don't necessarily live in a basement. These concerns are for companies which will actually make a profit with their product and plan on distributing their products in the US(or are US-based).

OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPMENT IS THE BEST WAY TO ENCOURAGE PROGRESS AND INNOVATION, OH BY THE WAY YOU SHOULD USE AN UNPOPULAR CODEC THAT IS TECHNOLOGICALLY INFERIOR IN EVERY WAY IMAGINABLE TO THE GOLD STANDARD BECAUSE IT MAKES STALLMAN CRY
Is this about right?

>>72
>BECAUSE IT MAKES STALLMAN CRY
>Is this about right?
Just like buying Windows copies.

NoScript saves the day again.

>>72
In fact Richard Maththew Stallman has never said that using Free™ software is the best way to encourage progress and innovation, and even if it were, that that would be the most important reason to choose it. Free™ software is about Freedom™, not progress. However, Free™ software and other Free™ things usually (but not necessarily always) encourage progress among other things.

I feel sorry for the Theora and Vorbis guys (and gals). If people wasted all their time complaining about the quality of Linux,Gnome ,etc to the extent they complain about Ogg well they do, we wouldn't have fully free OSes today. Give it time and have some faith.

>>76
As far as I know, just "giving it time" wouldn't help, Theora as it is requires more or less complete redesign, it simply can't be gradually improved. Of course, Theora bros and hoes can do such a thing, in theory, given enough time.

>>77
In the midst of all this trolling, someone just released some Theora BDRips of some anime at a very low bitrate, ruining the quality of the BD.

>>76
On a serious note, Vorbis is superior to AAC(which is superior to Mp3) for 2 channel encoding. It kind of sucks for 5.1 and higher. When I say superior, I mean that it requires less bitrate for equivalent quality.

Theora requires about 2-3 times more bitrate to achieve equivalent quality to H.264, that makes it undesirable for those that just want good compression or quality. Instead of needing 20GB for a BD, you need 40GB now. Now that is a difference!

Ogg is a container, mostly used for packing Vorbis audio these days, but a hacked version of it was used to allow multitrack encodes in the past(dual/triple/.. audio, subs, ...), however it was a hack on top of MS' VfW and not a particularily good one at that. MKV has almost fully replaced it for most things except audio, in which case you tend to see things like Vorbis in Ogg in MKV or FLAC in Ogg in MKV.

>>77
Theora was designed not to compete with H.264 but to be ready within the near future. The near future had already come to pass, Theora is now ready and the Theora standard will never be improved in the future. What we need is a different codec intended to compete with H.264. I'm banking my hope in Dirac would be a suitable replacement.

>>78
Vorbis is superior to AAC
Not at all bitrates, but it's certainly on the same league.
It kind of sucks for 5.1 and higher
They're working on it right now: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/surround/demo2.html A little too late as usual though ;_;

Also, I can't help but laugh at all the people complaining about patents. Is the compression efficiency ratio difference is close to two, as it is right now, it sure is a much better business proposition to shell out the cash for those patents. In the case of Firefox, Google would gladly pay for it, as moving YouTube to Theora would be much more expensive.

Also, GIF and MP3 had (have) the same problem and they didn't kill anybody.

And finally, there's a lot of patented stuff that all these complainers use without even realizing it. Heck, I'm sure most of these people think Apple is cool.