bzbarsky

339 ms·

2671.
by bzbarsky 16y ago
> the H.264 technology is unencumbered by license fees if > it's used non-commercially That's not true, unfortunately. There may have been no lawsuits (I can't comment on that, though I'd like to see your data). But that's just bec
2672.
by bzbarsky 16y ago
As it happens, MPEG-LA doesn't indemnify you from anything. They even say so on their website, though it's carefully hidden. But people would really like to believe their licensing fee paid for that sort of thing, so don't bother to check
2673.
by bzbarsky 16y ago
Which one is better depends on what you're doing with it and what sort of decoders you care about. If you read Dark Shikari's analysis carefully, he says that VP8 is better than H.264 Baseline Profile. As it happens, H.264 Baseline Profile
2674.
by bzbarsky 16y ago
I didn't say anything about distributing source code. To a first approximation users download binaries, not source code (things like Gentoo and MacPorts are edge cases; very few users use either one, really) . What I said is that the old C
2675.
by bzbarsky 16y ago
You're misunderstanding the statement. That seems to be pretty common. H.264 has royalties that you need to pay to produce a licensed encoder. Then it has _separate_ royalties you have to pay to take content encoded with a licensed encoder
2676.
by bzbarsky 16y ago
> doesn't necessarily mean the entire browser has to be closed. Right. I did say that #1 can be worked around. If you you you approach, you still get the Chromium/Chrome model, where you can't release the actual source to the binaries
2677.
by bzbarsky 16y ago
> There's no reason why they would have to make it closed > source, especially if they use x264. That's not what the lawyers said. In the US, at least; things may be different in your jurisdiction. Note that this is the route Chrom
2678.
by bzbarsky 16y ago
The fee would be about $5 million a year. Arguably, both could afford it (it would be about 5-10% of revenue, but doable). The reason Mozilla is not wanting to include H.264 is that: 1) It can't do that in the open source version, and doe
2679.
by bzbarsky 16y ago
$60k is claimed to be tight for raising a family of 4. You're looking at households, which are not the same thing at all. According to the table at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884238.html (which claims to be using census data; I trie
2680.
by bzbarsky 16y ago
Hmm. I wonder why I can't reply to your comment... As for links (the first one about cameras, the second one following up on it and about more camera models, the last about video editing software): http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_O
2681.
by bzbarsky 16y ago
YouTube announced months ago that they're transcoding pretty much everything they have to WebM. They've been working on it ever since; a significant fraction of YouTube videos are available in WebM right this second.
2682.
by bzbarsky 16y ago
Your videocamera's license for H.264, if you actually read it, is likely quite restrictive. If you use it to film a video, post the video on youtube, and get any revenue from the ads on the resulting youtube page, you're in violation of th
2683.
by bzbarsky 16y ago
Canvas rendering is not 100% consistent across canvas implementations. So you would be losing the ability to have the browser do layout for you, losing the ability to scroll sanely, etc, and gaining perhaps some improvement in consistency,
2684.
by bzbarsky 16y ago
For a bug in Mozilla's Bugzilla installation, that's high. Of course all the high-vote bugs are special-interest-advocacy stuff like "bring back MNG support" and "bring back gopher support" and "bring back the RSS button"... So high vote c
2685.
by bzbarsky 16y ago
For what it's worth, this test has little to do with JS execution speed. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=622358#c3 for an analysis of a profile of the test in Firefox. In brief, 80% is canvas operations due to the emula
2686.
by bzbarsky 16y ago
> People using jquery should be evolved enough to know what > CDNs are There are lots and lots of monkeys using jquery. Cargo-cultist monkeys, at that. At least that's my impression from the browser bugs I've seen filed with snipp
2687.
by bzbarsky 16y ago
One other thing. This algorithm, unless I'm missing something, doesn't handle situations in which the available widths are different for different lines in the paragraph, and in particular in which they available width for a line depends on
2688.
by bzbarsky 16y ago
If you made it an opt-in, that might be doable... though there would still be the danger of pages cargo-culting into the opt-in. But at that point you're also asking browsers to maintain two separate line-wrapping codepaths, of which one is
2689.
by bzbarsky 16y ago
> The algorithm isn't that expensive. It's quadratic in length of the paragraph, no? Not a problem for most reasonable text chunks, but browsers have to deal with unreasonable text too. In particular, O(N^2) algorithms in browser layo