The not so distance future of computing.

tomd123 · 2009-09-29 22:25:13

html 5: hopefully replaces flash videos

thetrivialstuff · 2009-10-06 15:19:37

tomd123 wrote:

html 5: hopefully replaces flash videos

Yeah, and then we'll be back to "RealVideo or Windows Media?"

Not looking forward to that; Flash was actually more manageable than the bygone days of needing six browser plugins for video. It was awful in the 90's and early 2000's...

Ranguvar · 2009-10-06 19:35:07

thetrivialstuff wrote:

tomd123 wrote:
html 5: hopefully replaces flash videos
Yeah, and then we'll be back to "RealVideo or Windows Media?"
Not looking forward to that; Flash was actually more manageable than the bygone days of needing six browser plugins for video. It was awful in the 90's and early 2000's...

No, we won't. Look up HTML 5 video. The purpose is NOT to need a plugin.

As it is, 99.999% of HTML 5 you will see will be H.264 or Ogg Theora. Blame software patents for the reason there isn't a standard on one or the other... Google wants H.264 (they complain Theora would cost them tons to switch to on YouTube because it compresses less efficiently, which is true), Apple wants H.264 I *think*, MS doesn't give a crap as they don't care about web standards anyways (:P), Opera can't afford H.264 patents so they want Theora, Mozilla wants a free format so they want Theora...
Blech.

thetrivialstuff · 2009-10-06 21:54:12

Ranguvar wrote:

No, we won't. Look up HTML 5 video. The purpose is NOT to need a plugin.

Right now, Flash is dominating online video and we're effectively at the "you don't need a plugin" stage already, because everybody has Flash anyway.

MS is not going to sit quietly on the sidelines and let there be a consistent, free standard if the video debate is reopened, and that's what HTML 5 is doing. If they go H.264, all the free browsers will have to become like mplayer/codecs -- no one will dare include them by default in free software, because they gratuitously infringe on patents (which they have to). If Linux can't include a web browser by default (or the free browsers don't play video by default -- which is the same thing as needing a plugin), that's going to cause problems.

If they go Theora, some of the big players will go H.264-by-plugin, and then MS is going to compete, and RealVideo will be back in the game as well.

I'm kind of pessimistic about this as you can tell :P

Anikom15 · 2009-10-06 22:09:13

Adobe won't let their baby die.

EDIT: Just fix'd a typo.

Last edited by Anikom15 (2009-10-06 22:09:49)

Trent · 2009-10-06 23:12:24

Look at the number of sites out there that still use table-based layout, and tell me with a straight face when you think Flash will die out.

Next decade? Nope, not a chance.

skottish · 2009-10-07 02:14:19

Ranguvar wrote:

thetrivialstuff wrote:
tomd123 wrote:
html 5: hopefully replaces flash videos
Yeah, and then we'll be back to "RealVideo or Windows Media?"
Not looking forward to that; Flash was actually more manageable than the bygone days of needing six browser plugins for video. It was awful in the 90's and early 2000's...
No, we won't. Look up HTML 5 video. The purpose is NOT to need a plugin.
As it is, 99.999% of HTML 5 you will see will be H.264 or Ogg Theora. Blame software patents for the reason there isn't a standard on one or the other... Google wants H.264 (they complain Theora would cost them tons to switch to on YouTube because it compresses less efficiently, which is true), Apple wants H.264 I *think*, MS doesn't give a crap as they don't care about web standards anyways (:P), Opera can't afford H.264 patents so they want Theora, Mozilla wants a free format so they want Theora...
Blech.

MS is backing HTML 5 and H264/AAC now.

Ranguvar · 2009-10-07 03:35:02

I hope Red Hat and the FSF were really convincing, we need to end software patents naow. A heavily patented (and thus, you must pay to implement) technology simply isn't acceptable as a web standard, IMHO, and Google's complaints about Theora are legitimate and not likely to be solved compared to how far ahead H.264 is and how much the poor Ogg guys have to work around every reasonable compression trick created in the past decade or so...

Vamp898 · 2009-10-07 10:42:32

KDE4 will going to be nearly stable in the same time when GNOME 4 comes up

Windows 8 (which is developed in C#/.NET and have nothing todo with Windows NT (Fully incompatible)) will be a great fail and Micrsoft will die -- going OpenSource as last act. Some developers takes the source and put a 100% working wine in Linux

The Linux Kernel Source will be about 4GB xD (think about the hardware that will appear in this time) and beceause of this they invent a standard to acces some Hardware.

Qt is went this large that you can use this

QLinux *os = new QLinux( 2.6.30 );

and GTK+ have the hottest newest stuff. Colored Buttons

GtkButton *button = gtk_button_new_with_color( "red" );

Last edited by Vamp898 (2009-10-07 10:44:01)

3]) · 2009-10-12 01:59:00

Well folks ,you think you are busy today? Wait till you have a computer with you everywhere on the go with on some flexible plastic where everything is touch. You will miss the good old days of easy computing, or actually think of them as primitive and live in the new times.

alecmg · 2009-11-03 14:29:06

qwerty keyboards will still be around

troll · 2009-11-30 02:19:40

Andrew Tanenbaum: "I told you so"
Linus Torvalds: "yeah, I'll give you that one"

sand_man · 2009-11-30 03:33:54

Vamp898 wrote:

Windows 8 (which is developed in C#/.NET and have nothing todo with Windows NT (Fully incompatible)) will be a great fail and Micrsoft will die -- going OpenSource as last act. Some developers takes the source and put a 100% working wine in Linux

You know this made me think.
Why has MS succeeded so well over all these years? Obviously they came up with something decent back in the day and continued to use **** old legacy code and adding to it.
One day they WILL (I expect) have to start an OS from scratch, scrapping all previous Windows OS compatibility and quite possibly go arse over tit (so to speak ).

I might be wrong. All great empires have to fall eventually.

Trent · 2009-11-30 03:46:42

I recall hearing that Microsoft wants to ditch Windows altogether and write a from-scratch replacement, to be available within the next 50 years.

Then again, I also recall hearing that Linux 3.0 will be a complete rewrite in C++. The things you learn, huh?

Anikom15 · 2009-11-30 23:08:51

Last edited by Anikom15 (2009-11-30 23:09:08)

Cyrusm · 2009-12-01 15:39:12

In the future, the linux kernel will become self-aware and rule over all the world with an iron, yet merciful, fist. and we shall all rejoice in our new found leaders wise decision making.
peace will spread across the lands, there will be no hunger, everyone will be educated, we will travel in tubes. So it is written in the prophesies of Richard Stallman.

oh, and I'm pretty excited what's going on with mobile devices, 10 years ago I don't think anyone could have predicted that they would have come so far

shock · 2009-12-05 10:13:26

The total world computing power of today would be equivalent to a $1000 computer of 2040 (according to Moore's law). big_smile

Lol, funny but yes true to some extent.

Coming back to topic. We don't know about future computing unless we define some needs of ours.

karol · 2009-12-05 13:07:22

> We don't know about future computing unless we define some needs of ours.
Redhead, not too tall, big b...lue eyes ... ;-) Hitachi Magic Wand meets Asimo.

shock · 2009-12-07 09:24:44

HTML 5 video ? Any demo or video presentation for this ?

sm4tik · 2009-12-14 17:51:52

SQL stops global warming.. and not even kidding!
Check it out here
(Also see the more complete analysis, which followed soon after, here)

Arch Linux

#26 2009-09-29 22:25:13

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

#27 2009-10-06 15:19:37

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

#28 2009-10-06 19:35:07

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

#29 2009-10-06 21:54:12

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

#30 2009-10-06 22:09:13

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

#31 2009-10-06 23:12:24

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

#32 2009-10-07 02:14:19

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

#33 2009-10-07 03:35:02

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

#34 2009-10-07 10:42:32

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

#35 2009-10-12 01:59:00

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

#36 2009-11-03 14:29:06

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

#37 2009-11-30 02:19:40

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

#38 2009-11-30 03:33:54

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

#39 2009-11-30 03:46:42

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

#40 2009-11-30 23:08:51

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

#41 2009-12-01 15:39:12

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

#42 2009-12-05 10:13:26

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

#43 2009-12-05 13:07:22

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

#44 2009-12-07 09:24:44

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

#45 2009-12-14 17:51:52

Re: The not so distance future of computing.

Board footer