fafner

19 ms·

211.
by fafner 13y ago
> I don't think Apple was initially on board. I think it may be there only since late last year. Didn't Apple already ship an implementation of that API in Maverick?
212.
by fafner 13y ago
What you are saying is just ridiculous. Adding DRM to HTML5 will destroy the open web and not preserve it. First of all the DRM proposal does NOT talk about plugins. The DRM support won't be plugins. Microsoft already implements the sp
213.
by fafner 13y ago
> So the Web either gets DRM, or Hollywood makes content available on proprietary platforms that provide it. DRM in the Web will be a proprietary platform! The EME proposal is a proposal to make the former open Web depend on proprietary
214.
by fafner 13y ago
Netflix along with Google and Microsoft are the companies behind the HTML5 DRM proposal.
215.
by fafner 13y ago
And no GNU/Linux support...
216.
by fafner 13y ago
And GOG refuses to add GNU/Linux support. Considering that many GOG games run in DOSEmu anyway and some come with native Linux support this is not really understandable.
217.
by fafner 13y ago
Besides the valid points already raised in the discussion it also shows that the US isn't considering the German intelligence service as a threat. Either because they expect German politicians not having the balls to order it to spy on
218.
by fafner 13y ago
Bullshit. GDB is improving constantly. Last time I checked LLDB was inferior. So stop spreading lies!
219.
by fafner 13y ago
My default is now DDG. It works great when I really want to look up Wikipedia or some similar website which is featured by DDG. But as soon as I start to do some real web searching I usually quickly put !g (shortcut for go to Google) in f
220.
by fafner 13y ago
Patches are welcome. But it requires fsf copyright assignment.
221.
by fafner 13y ago
I agree. This is just a move by Cisco to prevent the adoption of free codecs. But why do you say that Mozilla resists free codecs? They are shipping with Theora, Vorbis, Opus, WebM/VP8 support and are quite active in that area. Mean
222.
MELT, a Lispy extension language for GCC, version 1.0 released.(gcc.gnu.org)
1 points by fafner 13y ago|0 comments
223.
Songs of Diridum: Pushing the Web Audio API to Its Limits(hacks.mozilla.org)
1 points by fafner 13y ago|0 comments
224.
by fafner 13y ago
Raw changelogs aren't the issue. Submitting minor-minor bug fix releases is the issue.
225.
by fafner 13y ago
> As someone who doesn't use the dash, I am wondering what's in it for me. All other packages are updated as well. (Freshly rebased on top of Debian unstable.) So it really depends on what you are doing and which packages you
226.
by fafner 13y ago
No * https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2013-October/... * http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/28032.html
227.
by fafner 13y ago
Are they using regular Lua? Because LuaJIT can actually be quite fast. Snabb Switch is written mostly in Lua and it features Linux userland ethernet device drivers. http://blog.lukego.com/blog/2013/01/03/
228.
by fafner 13y ago
There are more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Guile#Programs_using_Guile But GNU Make seems to be the first major one.
229.
by fafner 13y ago
No, I prefer to keep DRM out of HTML5 and not make the open web rely on proprietary binary blobs making it effectively impossible to fully support by free software. My point is that adding DRM to Flash won't make DRM content (e.g., Net
230.
by fafner 13y ago
Dislike the DRM in HTML5 attempt instead. What chance does Mozilla have to implement DRM? None. DRM can't be implemented in free software. They could add support for closed source proprietary blobs. But the W3C proposal does not s
231.
by fafner 13y ago
No, it won't allow websites to provide their own DRM implementation! The proposal only provides an interface to the HTMLMediaElement to be used by the website to talk to a restrictions module inside the browser. It does not specify h
232.
by fafner 13y ago
Give FF a try again. It has vastly improved since FF 3.6.
233.
by fafner 13y ago
It seems many Chrome users have last used FF 3.6 and still compare Chrome to that. Meanwhile Chrome has gotten slow and annoying. The old "boiling frog" anecdote comes to mind.
234.
by fafner 13y ago
Realistically: Users use what's available, affordable, and easy to use. That's why Netflix is successful not because of DRM. You could get every bit of Netflix from Pirate Bay without DRM for free as in beer. When Apple dropped DR
235.
by fafner 13y ago
I don't care how they are restricting their users as long as they don't destroy the open web by forcing proprietary binary blobs into HTML5. If a company wants to hassle their users with DRM then they can use Silverlight/Flas
236.
by fafner 13y ago
The current proposal for Digital Restrictions Management is to have an API which would load proprietary closed source binary blobs to handle the videos. Or in other words: They force "Yet Another Flash" into HTML5. Perverting the
237.
by fafner 13y ago
I guess in that case they'd add DRM support. Similar to them adding h.264 support now.
238.
by fafner 13y ago
That won't work. If the restrictions module simply hands back the decrypted data then you could just change the browser to dump the data on your disk. The only way it will work is if the restrictions module handles everything from dec
239.
by fafner 13y ago
Not a better Flash. The same crap but this time embedded in what used to be an open web standard.
240.
by fafner 13y ago
With the insecurity of being a closed source binary blob that has to duplicate a lot of the Web standard.

More ›