youtube starts html5 preview

Cdh · 2010-01-22 17:23:42

guisacouto wrote:

sorry for the offtopic, but why isnt 3.6 already in the extra repos?

I guess because it depends on a new gtk depends on new libpng and libjpeg etc. pp.

descendent87 · 2010-01-22 19:11:19

Tested this out on chromium, works great. 1 step closer to getting rid of flash!

PirateJonno · 2010-01-22 23:42:09

guisacouto wrote:

sorry for the offtopic, but why isnt 3.6 already in the extra repos?

it's in testing atm

sand_man · 2010-01-23 03:50:25

Works fine for me with chromium but no sound...or am I totally missing the point here?

doorknob60 · 2010-01-24 05:30:39

whiteychs wrote:

Not switching back, sorry Google, I want my extensions
I believe Chromium can use Chrome's extensions.

Not Firefox extensions Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I can't live without some of my Firefox extensions (well I can, but don't like to...). Also Chromium looks bad with my GTK theme, and there's no way to fix it, I've messed with all the themes and "use GTK style" and it still looks bad, so meh

ilembitov · 2010-01-24 11:03:15

Anybody tried Epiphany? I am asking, because atm I don't have a Linux box handy.

GNOME people were supposed to have HTML5 video working with gstreamer, so I guess as long as the gstreamer codecs for h264 are present, Epiphany (and any gtkWebkit browser) will be able to handle it (or perhaps it will happen in 2.30), so it's one more reason for me to drop Firefox in favour of Epiphany. I live in Russia, so I don't care if h264 is patent-encumbered - it's still free and most certainly a better option than Flash.

skottish · 2010-01-24 17:14:00

ilembitov wrote:

Anybody tried Epiphany? I am asking, because atm I don't have a Linux box handy.
GNOME people were supposed to have HTML5 video working with gstreamer, so I guess as long as the gstreamer codecs for h264 are present, Epiphany (and any gtkWebkit browser) will be able to handle it (or perhaps it will happen in 2.30), so it's one more reason for me to drop Firefox in favour of Epiphany. I live in Russia, so I don't care if h264 is patent-encumbered - it's still free and most certainly a better option than Flash.

I've only had one limited success with getting Webkit to do anything with HTML5. And even there it was only once.

Anikom15 wrote:

The end is near.

Oh, we teeter and we totter...

Anikom15 · 2010-01-24 20:14:15

I use epiphany and it's working fine. : )

skottish · 2010-01-24 22:44:57

Anikom15 wrote:

I use epiphany and it's working fine. : )

Hmmm, I installed epiphany and the whole load of gstreamer crap to see if I can even see any video with webkit-gtk (outside of chromium) and I got nothing but blank windows and complaints.

Mad Fish · 2010-01-25 12:46:28

Anikom15 wrote:

I use epiphany and it's working fine. : )

How you've got it to work? I have epiphany and gstreamer installed from repos, but html5 in youtube isn't working.

Anikom15 · 2010-01-25 23:37:18

Strange, it stopped working for me. Maybe I was mistaken?

Ranguvar · 2010-01-26 18:24:13

H.264 as a (unofficial or official, same difference) web standard for video?

No, thank you.

Mad Fish · 2010-01-26 18:34:57

Ranguvar wrote:

H.264 as a (unofficial or official, same difference) web standard for video?
No, thank you.

Existence of Ogg Theora is enough to guarantee that at least one option is always available. As long as H.264 is not an official standard, everything is OK. Everybody is free to use whatever he wants.

Locking down everybody to using Ogg Theora is just stupid. The web is about freedom, so everybody should be free to choose any codec he likes.

What if Ogg Theora is accepted as a standard, and then a new, free and better codec become available? Rewrite a standard? Oh.

xd-0 · 2010-01-26 20:41:02

I realy hope people begin to take dirac more seriously. Due to the fact that it produces quality not far behind h.264, is free as theora, and also provides gstreamer plugins.

dbb · 2010-01-27 03:06:04

Mad Fish wrote:

Ranguvar wrote:
H.264 as a (unofficial or official, same difference) web standard for video?
No, thank you.
Existence of Ogg Theora is enough to guarantee that at least one option is always available. As long as H.264 is not an official standard, everything is OK. Everybody is free to use whatever he wants.
Locking down everybody to using Ogg Theora is just stupid. The web is about freedom, so everybody should be free to choose any codec he likes.
What if Ogg Theora is accepted as a standard, and then a new, free and better codec become available? Rewrite a standard? Oh.

No one is saying to "lock down everybody to using Ogg Theora", in fact the post the previous poster linked to by Christopher Blizzard points that the more Free codecs they are the better, because it means that if one of them is hit with a submarine patent, people can just switch to another. The most any group ever asked for was for Theora to be an officially recommended base codec that content providers could rely upon the browser supporting. <img/> isn't locked down to JPEG, or GIF, or PNG, or SVG, or BMP, etc, in fact like <video/>, <img/> doesn't specify any particular codec. The DOM for <video/> even includes methods for querying the media support capabilities of the browser dynamically, no one ever intended for Theora to be the One True Codec of the web.

Mad Fish · 2010-01-27 08:14:07

dbb wrote:

no one ever intended for Theora to be the One True Codec of the web.

In fact, initially it was intended so. In the initial draft of HTML5 spec it was mentioned, that Ogg Theora is a requirement for everyone. THAT was stupid. Now it is OK, really.

venky80 · 2010-01-27 12:19:34

i thought there were no harware accelerators for ogg theora/dirac am i right?

kokoko3k · 2010-01-27 13:28:00

Actually html5 version (chromium) gets more cpu power than flash one, that's because scaling is done via software, i think.

Last edited by kokoko3k (2010-01-27 13:28:21)

Ranguvar · 2010-01-27 15:43:13

dbb wrote:

Mad Fish wrote:
Ranguvar wrote:
H.264 as a (unofficial or official, same difference) web standard for video?
No, thank you.
Existence of Ogg Theora is enough to guarantee that at least one option is always available. As long as H.264 is not an official standard, everything is OK. Everybody is free to use whatever he wants.
Locking down everybody to using Ogg Theora is just stupid. The web is about freedom, so everybody should be free to choose any codec he likes.
What if Ogg Theora is accepted as a standard, and then a new, free and better codec become available? Rewrite a standard? Oh.
No one is saying to "lock down everybody to using Ogg Theora", in fact the post the previous poster linked to by Christopher Blizzard points that the more Free codecs they are the better, because it means that if one of them is hit with a submarine patent, people can just switch to another. The most any group ever asked for was for Theora to be an officially recommended base codec that content providers could rely upon the browser supporting. <img/> isn't locked down to JPEG, or GIF, or PNG, or SVG, or BMP, etc, in fact like <video/>, <img/> doesn't specify any particular codec. The DOM for <video/> even includes methods for querying the media support capabilities of the browser dynamically, no one ever intended for Theora to be the One True Codec of the web.

What Mad Fish said.

And, it isn't all nice if H.264 just becomes an unofficial standard... GIF wasn't an _official_ standard, either. The same results may occur.

If this goes through, all we can do is hope that the H.264 patent holders are feeling very benevolent, or else software patents are banned (even better).

Mad Fish · 2010-01-27 16:25:03

Ranguvar wrote:

And, it isn't all nice if H.264 just becomes an unofficial standard... GIF wasn't an _official_ standard, either. The same results may occur.
If this goes through, all we can do is hope that the H.264 patent holders are feeling very benevolent, or else software patents are banned (even better).

For the GIF case, there were no alternatives to it at that time. That's why it had became so widespread.

But for video, we have Theora and Dirac. If you're choosing H.264, that's your choice, and you must know what you're doing. Google definitely knows what they're doing, when choosing codec for YouTube. They can pay patent royalties. For example, in my country (and in many others) there are no patent problems with H.264, so I can use it as freely as Theora.

What do I need as a user, is a modular codec system in browser (yeah, GStreamer). That way it will not matter, which codec is actually used. Modular system also means no patent problems for browser developers and in the same time allows to use just anything.

I think that will be the best way.

winch · 2010-01-27 20:25:14

Mad Fish wrote:

What do I need as a user, is a modular codec system in browser (yeah, GStreamer). That way it will not matter, which codec is actually used. Modular system also means no patent problems for browser developers and in the same time allows to use just anything.
I think that will be the best way.

That is the current way. Media players have provided browser plugins capable of playing media embedded in a page for years. Do we just have to wait another 10 years in the hope it will start working?
I know exactly how that will end. I'll still be using a locked down pc at work with IE capable of only viewing the media formats supported by the browser and flash. I'm sure my fancy phone will be just as locked down yet support a different bunch of media formats because it was manufactured by a different company with there own formats to promote.

Arch Linux

#26 2010-01-22 17:23:42

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#27 2010-01-22 19:11:19

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#28 2010-01-22 23:42:09

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#29 2010-01-23 03:50:25

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#30 2010-01-24 05:30:39

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#31 2010-01-24 11:03:15

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#32 2010-01-24 17:14:00

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#33 2010-01-24 20:14:15

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#34 2010-01-24 22:44:57

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#35 2010-01-25 12:46:28

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#36 2010-01-25 23:37:18

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#37 2010-01-26 18:24:13

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#38 2010-01-26 18:34:57

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#39 2010-01-26 20:41:02

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#40 2010-01-27 03:06:04

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#41 2010-01-27 08:14:07

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#42 2010-01-27 12:19:34

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#43 2010-01-27 13:28:00

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#44 2010-01-27 15:43:13

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#45 2010-01-27 16:25:03

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

#46 2010-01-27 20:25:14

Re: youtube starts html5 preview

Board footer