Will HTML 5 Be Great For Linux?

[derekeverett]

I was just reading some on HTML 5. From what I can put together I can't see how this new standard won't be a great thing for Linux.

Apparently audio/video plug-ins will not be required ?! Goodbye flash & Quicktime woes? That's got to be a good thing for us.

What I'm not 100% clear on is how exactly media will play? If the plug-ins are just going to be server-side then is it possible that Linux support could actually get worse? Perhaps it will be up to each website to provide Linux support for viewing media?

I don't know.. I'm asking.. anybody have any opinions or facts to help straighten me out here?

No big shocker but I understand that Microsoft is the lone hold out of the major browser vendors on starting to support the new HTML 5 standard. Likely because they want to push Silverlight?

I'm looking forward to finding out more..

[purgatori]

If it means that Flash, Ajax, Java, etc. become less common, then it will be good for everyone. The web needs to lose some weight.

[Nevon]

Right now the problem is settling on what video codec to use. Some companies (Google & Apple) are pushing for h.264 while others would prefer Ogg Theora. There's nothing in the HTML5 spec that says what codec should be used, which complicates things since there's no universially supported, well-performing codec available.

My guess is that Flash and its companions will be around for quite some time.

[alket]

www.youtube.com/html5 it works with Google Chrome in Ubuntu

[madnessjack]

I don't understand the reinventing the wheel this. Also, HTML is Hyper-text Markup Language. Where in that acronym does it say "video" or "canvas drawing"??

I'm not big fan of Flash but streaming video has already been done. Why take it back a step?

[derekeverett]

www.youtube.com/html5 it works with Google Chrome in Ubuntu

I'm going to try that. Thank you.

[mips]

Why take it back a step?

Getting rid of plugins like Flash etc would be taking a step in the right direction. Having video play on any browser and any OS is the right way of doing things.

[the yawner]

Look Ma, no flash. (http://9elements.com/io/projects/html5/canvas/) The main page of 9elements (http://9elements.com/) also includes a simple video implementation. And all I needed is a modern browser. So it's hardly a back step.

[mickie.kext]

www.youtube.com/html5 it works with Google Chrome in Ubuntu

That is hardly a good thing for Linux. Chrome is closed source and Chromium does not support h.264

[derekeverett]

That is hardly a good thing for Linux. Chrome is closed source and Chromium does not support h.264

The reason it works in Chrome though is because Chrome supports the HTML 5 standard concerning video playback. So does Safari.

In the future more browsers will as well. I know for sure that Mozilla and Opera will be two of them.

So using Chrome and testing this on youtube is a glimpse into the future.

[madnessjack]

Look Ma, no flash. (http://9elements.com/io/projects/html5/canvas/) The main page of 9elements (http://9elements.com/) also includes a simple video implementation. And all I needed is a modern browser. So it's hardly a back step.
Honestly, are you being serious?

The stupid circle things are whacking one of my cores past 90%- and this is in FF3.6 WinXP, so I'm more than sure it won't work in Linux.

Videos has been implemented and implemented well by Flash. HTML5 is pathetic. The only thing it's got going for it are it's politics ("free, open-source, moral")- and tbh that's just bs.

[derekeverett]

Honestly, are you being serious?

The stupid circle things are whacking one of my cores past 90%- and this is in FF3.6 WinXP, so I'm more than sure it won't work in Linux.

Videos has been implemented and implemented well by Flash. HTML5 is pathetic. The only thing it's got going for it are it's politics ("free, open-source, moral")- and tbh that's just bs.

Firefox does not yet meet the standard. But they have announced they soon will.

IE, as I said in the first post isn't co-operating yet.

It's still early and the HTML 5 standard isn't even official yet. It will get there. Can't judge the cookies before they're baked...

[chriswyatt]

YouTube / Google decided to use a proprietary codec, in my opinion that's not good for Linux.

[chriswyatt]

So, to me it just sounds like a big corporation setting the standard, just because they can and it's good for their business model. Not the first time that's happened.

[derekeverett]

So, to me it just sounds like a big corporation setting the standard, just because they can and it's good for their business model. Not the first time that's happened.

I'm not sure exactly who is involved, but I know that the W3C, Mozilla, Apple, Google and Opera are. I believe Microsoft is also involved in creating the standard they just haven't committed to it yet.

Apparently the man "writing" the standard now works for google. Not sure what that will mean.

This is all according to the information I read today anyway.

[Paqman]

I understand that Microsoft is the lone hold out of the major browser vendors on starting to support the new HTML 5 standard.

Not at all, IE9 will support HTML5 (http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/). How well they'll implement the standards remains to be seen, but they have come to the party.

I don't think HTML5 will make much difference for Linux users really. Except maybe for the small subset of Linux users who don't install Flash for philosophical reasons.

[derekeverett]

Not at all, IE9 will support HTML5 (http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/). How well they'll implement the standards remains to be seen, but they have come to the party.

I don't think HTML5 will make much difference for Linux users really. Except maybe for the small subset of Linux users who don't install Flash for philosophical reasons.

Cool, I'm happy to be wrong about that.

I don't any philosophical reason to dislike flash... but like everybody else I'm tired of it's Linux performance. So I won't miss it much!

[Paqman]

True, we should get slightly lower CPU when watching video on the web. I find even netbooks have enough smash to use Flash pretty well, but lower CPU will be nice for battery life I guess.

[the yawner]

Videos has been implemented and implemented well by Flash. HTML5 is pathetic. The only thing it's got going for it are it's politics ("free, open-source, moral")- and tbh that's just bs.
Honestly, are you being serious? Flash has always been a thorn in the side, regardless of OS or browser. It has always been a hit/miss thing for Linux.

What's so bad about improving a standard anyway?

[madnessjack]

Honestly, are you being serious? Flash has always been a thorn in the side, regardless of OS or browser. It has always been a hit/miss thing for Linux.
Oh really- So millions of YouTube and NewGrounds users and Facebook gamers consider it "a thorn in the side"??

Music on MySpace and Last.fm amongst others

The BBC iPlayer?

I won't go on.


What's so bad about improving a standard anyway?
I have seen no improvement and barely a comparison to the existing standards.

[purgatori]

Honestly, are you being serious?

The stupid circle things are whacking one of my cores past 90%- and this is in FF3.6 WinXP, so I'm more than sure it won't work in Linux.

Videos has been implemented and implemented well by Flash. HTML5 is pathetic. The only thing it's got going for it are it's politics ("free, open-source, moral")- and tbh that's just bs.

It's not just politics. On my machine at least, Flash is buggy, slow, and it breaks keyboard functionality. I could care less about politics (I use things like OSS4, despite it not being 100% kosher as far as GNU/GPL goes), I just want something that is works, is light, and consistent/well-integrated, and Flash is none of these things.

[Dragonbite]

www.youtube.com/html5 it works with Google Chrome in Ubuntu

I read somewhere that there are 3 browsers that support the H.264 format (IE, Safari and Chrome) and 3 browsers supporting the OGG format (Firefox, Opera and Chrome).


So, to me it just sounds like a big corporation setting the standard, just because they can and it's good for their business model. Not the first time that's happened.

Microsoft is the well known company for pushing their version of "standards". Thankfully it looks like they are coming to realize that their standards is pushing them out of the way, not giving them an advantage.

Will HTML 5 be great for Linux? I think it will be interesting for everybody, and an opportunity. An opportunity to jump on and take advantage of new technology by all platforms.

One of my concerns, though, is how will HTML 5 play with lower-powered systems? Modern systems should work without any issues, but with older, lower spec systems slight heaviness or slowdowns are much more noticeable.

My hope is that the video codec of choice swings to the open source variant (either Ogg or the one Google bought if they were to fully open source it) which would not only mean better support in Linux, but is another noticeable example of open source!

[Paqman]

I have seen no improvement and barely a comparison to the existing standards.

There's loads of good stuff in HTML5. <nav> and <footer> tags and deprecation of horrible old HTML nasties like <font> for a start. Plus integrating media into web content without requiring cludgey plugins has got to be a good move.

[Grenage]

While I would prefer Theora, in my eyes h.264 is preferable to Flash. I don't like most flash implementations, they tend to be bloated and over-used. Overall, the HTML5 spec looks great.

[errrata]

More importantly HTML5 Web sockets and local database are going to radically change the way online applications are designed, for the better IMHO.

[Dragonbite]

At least even if HTML 5 provides a means for running video without Flash, it doesn't spell the end of flash for a couple of reasons;

Flash does so much more than just video, it is just the most popular platform for vide at this time. There will still be games and other applications available!
Just because HTML 5 may have a video player, that doesn't mean Adobe won't work to improve Flash by making it leaner, or just more feature-rich. So in this way we all win with a better Flash. HTML 5 is just providing the first possible competition for Flash (Silverlight really isn't).

[gnomeuser]

Most people confuse the web standards war with the ongoing effort to encourage the use of open formats.

You do not automatically end the format conflict just by introducing HTML5. In fact as things are going you are probably making it worse as the standard has no defined default codec leaving vendors up to doing whatever they please, which they surely will do.

HTML5 is also about more than video and audio, this is important the framework we promote for the web should be a solid framework with features that allows real application development.

HTML5 is a shuddy standard with several baffling design choices, at least that is what I hear from people who work with this every day. It still doesn't cover the same jobs as other frameworks and it ties you down to some specific development choices which might not suit existing development houses.

So separating the codec problem from the HTML5 debate, we have to first focus on the standard itself. Is it good, does it need work. Are other platforms superior?

The codec issue exists beyond web standards, we should have open formats everywhere but we are certainly not going to get there by letting the issue muddy technical decision.

That being said, no I don't see HTML5 doing anything especially good for Linux. Aside that having actually used several html5 applications I can't say that any of them have been that impressive or stable. I think it is to early to hail HTML5 as our savior and blindly embracing it on the false notion that picking it is a strenghtening of open formats would be a grave mistake indeed.

[samjh]

What I'm not 100% clear on is how exactly media will play? If the plug-ins are just going to be server-side then is it possible that Linux support could actually get worse? Perhaps it will be up to each website to provide Linux support for viewing media?It is actually up to the browser client (eg. Firefox, Chrome, Internet Explorer, Opera, Safari, etc.) to support the media format. They can implement that in a few different ways: the browser itself can perform the playback, the browser may use hardware decoding for playback (important in mobile devices), or the browser may use external software (eg. GStreamer). Think of it like browser support for JPEG, PNG, GIF, etc.

At the moment, no format has been decided. Ogg Vorbis and Theora had some support earlier, but there are concerns that Ogg may be subject to "submarine patents". A submarine patent is an obscure patent which has not been enforced yet, but may be enforced in the future. Typically, the patent holder stays silent while small developers (who don't have much money to give) infringe their patents, but begin their attack when large businesses start to infringe (ie. Apple, Microsoft, et al). Due to those above concerns and the technical advantages of H.264, Apple and Nokia have opposed the specification from supporting Ogg and Theora. Google has cited performance concerns about Ogg and Theora, although they have included support for both Ogg/Theora and H264 in their Chrome browser.

From the perspective of patent-licensing, Ogg/Theora is the way to go. But from the perspective of existing content support and performance, H264 is the better solution. The W3C's policy is to use royalty-free formats only, so this is a big problem.

Personally, I think there are two definitive options:
Apple, Google, Mozilla, and Opera, should put their heads together for a FOSS video and audio codec specifically for HTML5 with Apple and Nokia implementing a reference hardware decoder for mobile devices; or
Apple, as a member of MPEG LA (which holds and issues licenses for H264), should negotiate a deal for a free patent license for browser developers.We are unlikely to come across a suitable codec for video and audio which fits the W3C's requirements in the near future unless one is purposely developed for it, or H264's licensing issues are resolved. Ogg and Theora are big legal risks (hundreds of millions of dollars) with little reward (no better performance than H264 generally, worse performance than H264 for mobile devices), and unlikely to gather any support soon. Even if HTML5 mandates Ogg and Theora, content providers will use H264 if that's what the major browsers support.


No big shocker but I understand that Microsoft is the lone hold out of the major browser vendors on starting to support the new HTML 5 standard. Likely because they want to push Silverlight? Microsoft has not been significantly involved in HTML5, as they do not have a representative in the working group. A Microsoft employee, Adrian Bateman, has given feedback on the specification, but didn't suggest what codec to use.

[northwestuntu]

YouTube / Google decided to use a proprietary codec, in my opinion that's not good for Linux.

well last time i checked adobe flash is not open source ;)

[samjh]

Actually Flash is an open format, and has been for some time.

Adobe Flash player is not open-source, but let's not confuse that with the media format. ;)

[wojox]

While I would prefer Theora, in my eyes h.264 is preferable to Flash. I don't like most flash implementations, they tend to be bloated and over-used. Overall, the HTML5 spec looks great.

^^ This. Agreed.

[hessiess]

Yes its closed, but H264 is technically the better codec, providing better quality with a smaller file size.

The canvas tag and SVG do provide a open system with comparable capabilities to Flash.

[madnessjack]

The canvas tag and SVG do provide a open system with comparable capabilities to Flash.

Not comparable in the slightest! :P

http://www.themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2010/03/22/

[swoll1980]

Look Ma, no flash. (http://9elements.com/io/projects/html5/canvas/) The main page of 9elements (http://9elements.com/) also includes a simple video implementation. And all I needed is a modern browser. So it's hardly a back step.

That's got awesome sauce all over it.

[hessiess]

Not comparable in the slightest! :P

http://www.themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2010/03/22/

That is comparing the performance, not the capabilities. Flash is faster *currently* because it has bean in development for longer, so is more optimised.

SVG performance could be increased enormously by rendering it using hardware (OpenGL) instead of software, which the current implementations seam to do.

[swoll1980]

Ignore trolls, and they will find something better to do.

[madnessjack]

That is comparing the performance, not the capabilities. Flash is faster *currently* because it has bean in development for longer, so is more optimised.

SVG performance could be increased enormously by rendering it using hardware (OpenGL) instead of software, which the current implementations seam to do.
Flash has much more capability too. Yes it has been in development longer, so why wait another 10 years for another standard to mature? Also, Flash uses compiled files, so it's optimised for speed and size before it reaches the client machine.

[Paqman]

Most people confuse the web standards war with the ongoing effort to encourage the use of open formats.


Indeed, including the big players you mention.

IMO a web standard shouldn't mandate a particular format for media. It should just define a common framework for various types of media to be used and rendered correctly on a page. The whole Ogg/Theora argument has been a bit of a pointless distraction.

[saulgoode]

Flash has much more capability too. Yes it has been in development longer, so why wait another 10 years for another standard to mature?

Because the codec formats used within Flash files are patent-encumbered.

[doas777]

I don't understand the reinventing the wheel this. Also, HTML is Hyper-text Markup Language. Where in that acronym does it say "video" or "canvas drawing"??

I'm not big fan of Flash but streaming video has already been done. Why take it back a step?

tech standards are a moving target and need to be updated every few years.

the video comes in the same way the <img> tag did. <img> allows the markup to refer to an image, that the client will download and render with it;s own engine. in this case it would be a <video> tag, thats all.

[TheNessus]

I can't see how this new standard won't be a great thing for Linux.

you DON'T see how it WON'T be great...

that's rather negative. How about taking a better approach in life? start by rephrasing this line like this:

"I can see how this will be great for linux"

[swoll1980]

you DON'T see how it WON'T be great...

that's rather negative. How about taking a better approach in life? start by rephrasing this line like this:

"I can see how this will be great for linux"

Brought to you by the letter F, and the number 5.

[swoll1980]

Any body who thinks this isn't great for Linux. Consider the possibility that Adobe might discontinue their support for Linux, or Silverlight could become the new standard. HTML 5 will put an end to these uncertainties.

[Paqman]

Any body who thinks this isn't great for Linux. Consider the possibility that Adobe might discontinue their support for Linux, or Silverlight could become the new standard. HTML 5 will put an end to these uncertainties.

True, but there are open source Flash and Silverlight replacement projects. Ok, the Flash ones suck, but it wouldn't be the end of the web for Linux users.

HTML5 certainly won't be bad for Linux users (far from it) but I don't think we get a great deal more benefit than people using other OSes.

[swoll1980]

True, but there are open source Flash and Silverlight replacement projects. Ok, the Flash ones suck, but it wouldn't be the end of the web for Linux users.

HTML5 certainly won't be bad for Linux users (far from it) but I don't think we get a great deal more benefit than people using other OSes.

The silverlight project isn't much better. You would also have to consider the fact that MS could make the Linux version incompatible at anytime those choose.

[Paqman]

The silverlight project isn't much better. You would also have to consider the fact that MS could make the Linux version incompatible at anytime those choose.

Sure, but who uses Silverlight anyway? I think i've come across one site that tried to get me to install it. No thanks!

[Dragonbite]

Any body who thinks this isn't great for Linux. Consider the possibility that Adobe might discontinue their support for Linux, or Silverlight could become the new standard. HTML 5 will put an end to these uncertainties.

I don't see HTML 5 having any real relevance to Adobe or Microsoft's support of Linux with Flash or Silverlight. Yes, I know technically Microsoft is relying on Mono and Moonlight for Linux's Silverlight support.

Microsoft is hoping Silverlight will get a boost from being the programming language for their coming Window 7 Mobile phones so I don't think they care too much about Linux as is.

If Adobe or Microsoft changes their stance on Linux, it isn't going to be because of something so minor as the default codec of a web standard which Linux has no more of a stake in as Adobe or Microsoft!

[scouser73]

Getting rid of plugins like Flash etc would be taking a step in the right direction. Having video play on any browser and any OS is the right way of doing things.

True, shame that Firefox isn't included in the browsers that are needed to run HTML5 though.

[cguy]

Honestly, are you being serious?

The stupid circle things are whacking one of my cores past 90%- and this is in FF3.6 WinXP, so I'm more than sure it won't work in Linux.

Videos has been implemented and implemented well by Flash. HTML5 is pathetic. The only thing it's got going for it are it's politics ("free, open-source, moral")- and tbh that's just bs.

OMG! Just like a flash video! :p

[samh785]

I don't understand the reinventing the wheel this. Also, HTML is Hyper-text Markup Language. Where in that acronym does it say "video" or "canvas drawing"??
It doesn't say anything about pictures either, but I doubt you'll complain about that. ;)

[madnessjack]

It doesn't say anything about pictures either, but I doubt you'll complain about that. ;)

Haha :P yeah i would!

I mean, some browsers support GIFs, some only JPEGS, jeeez... :P

[GermanGiant]

People not being locked into any particular OS API and using standards driven web-development can only be a good thing for Linux.

If your entire life is online, and everything you need is a web application, why do you need Windows anymore?

I don't expect Linux to get major market share soon, but steady growth shouldn't be an unrealistic goal

[sdowney717]

Originally Posted by the yawner View Post
Look Ma, no flash. The main page of 9elements also includes a simple video implementation. And all I needed is a modern browser. So it's hardly a back step.

works well on my desktop
http://9elements.com/

works even a little better in Chrome. With firefox, firefox lags when trying to select another tab.

[Chronon]

I don't understand the reinventing the wheel this. Also, HTML is Hyper-text Markup Language. Where in that acronym does it say "video" or "canvas drawing"??

I'm not big fan of Flash but streaming video has already been done. Why take it back a step?

Are you against <img> tags too?

edit: I guess I should have read more of the thread. It seems you are against <img>.

[mamamia88]

what i've experiences using the beta on chrome it's great

[samjh]

True, shame that Firefox isn't included in the browsers that are needed to run HTML5 though.

What do you mean by "browsers that are needed to run HTML5"?

Firefox already supports some HTML5 features. Mozilla is represented in the specification's working group as well, so it has influence on the specification.

[the yawner]

Perhaps in reference to Youtube HTML5?

[swoll1980]

I don't see HTML 5 having any real relevance to Adobe or Microsoft's support of Linux with Flash or Silverlight.

Neither do I. What I said was Adobe, and Microsoft can make flash unusable to Linux users when ever it is appropriate to do so. If HTML 5 becomes the standard we won't have to worry about this.

[swoll1980]

I'm starting to figure out how this stuff works I think. The whole reason Silverlight exist is because most websites are flash based. It would almost seem as if Microsoft could be cut out of the home computer market altogether. Most people don't care about Windows as it is just a means to get on line, and look at the pretty flash based websites. These companies could easily cut Linux users out of the loop.

[Frak]

HTML5 video will have next to no effect on Flash/Silverlight adoption, especially there is no standard implementation. Everybody is just kinda throwing their hands up in the air and screaming at the sky as to how and what format should be used.

Flash/Silverlight have many more uses than just video.

[Dragonbite]

HTML5 video will have next to no effect on Flash/Silverlight adoption, especially there is no standard implementation. Everybody is just kinda throwing their hands up in the air and screaming at the sky as to how and what format should be used.

Flash/Silverlight have many more uses than just video.

They have more uses than just video, and that is going to keep them alive. It is just that video use is the most obvious use for them since it removes that format/codec barrier and like Java, "write once, play anywhere".

Flash will still have games and Silverlight will still have.. -er.. um... Windows 7 Mobile phones! :D

[samjh]

I'm starting to figure out how this stuff works I think. The whole reason Silverlight exist is because most websites are flash based. It would almost seem as if Microsoft could be cut out of the home computer market altogether. Most people don't care about Windows as it is just a means to get on line, and look at the pretty flash based websites. These companies could easily cut Linux users out of the loop.

Eh? Your logic isn't connecting well. ;)

Silverlight is just a competitor to Adobe Flash and Sun JavaFX, for online application software delivery, not just movies. Silverlight, Flash, and JavaFX will have little or no impact on HTML5. The only effect between those platforms and HTML5 is merely in the delivery of video and audio, which is just a small component of the strategic online battlefield.

And just why would anyone "cut Linux users out of the loop"?! There is no conspiracy. No software company is obliged to support a particular operating system. Rather, it is up to the operating system to be significant enough to catch the attention of software companies. Linux is barely significant enough. If we want more support, then the Linux user community has to grow larger.

[Roasted]

I don't understand the reinventing the wheel this. Also, HTML is Hyper-text Markup Language. Where in that acronym does it say "video" or "canvas drawing"??

I'm not big fan of Flash but streaming video has already been done. Why take it back a step?

Just think:

Instead of relying on the **** poor work Adobe has done for Flash across all operating systems, we can now be thankful that it'll be out of their hands and HTML5 will pick up the workload.

This is a step forward...

[madnessjack]

Just think:

Instead of relying on the **** poor work Adobe has done for Flash across all operating systems, we can now be thankful that it'll be out of their hands and HTML5 will pick up the workload.

This is a step forward...

**** poor??? It's a standard that's been picked up by the biggest web-sites in the world!

It out-performs the current offerings from SVG/HTML5/etc by miles. It's just *some* of us Linux folk that are having issues.

[Roasted]

**** poor??? It's a standard that's been picked up by the biggest web-sites in the world!

It out-performs the current offerings from SVG/HTML5/etc by miles. It's just *some* of us Linux folk that are having issues.

And some Windows folks, and some Mac folks too. I work in IT with about 1800 systems. I see flash issues even with the beloved Windows systems as well.

Adobe has been lacking in the flash department for years. To say it's top notch is nothing short of laughable.

The only time in the history of Apple's existence have I ever wanted to stand up and yell **** YEAH was when Steve Jobs blatantly called them lazy.

[swoll1980]

And just why would anyone "cut Linux users out of the loop"?! There is no conspiracy. No software company is obliged to support a particular operating system. Rather, it is up to the operating system to be significant enough to catch the attention of software companies. Linux is barely significant enough. If we want more support, then the Linux user community has to grow larger.

If they feel that the money spent on Linux support could be better spent somewhere else. I think the better question is why would they continue supporting a "barely significant" OS? Your agreeing with me with out knowing it. I'm not talking about conspiracies. I'm talking about bottom lines.

[MasterNetra]

Why don't html support both h.### and ogg? Why must it be one or the other? Must their be this retarded and pointless battle between the two?

[swoll1980]

It's just *some* of us Linux folk that are having issues.

You must have a different flash player then me.

[tica vun]

Why don't html support both h.### and ogg? Why must it be one or the other? Must their be this retarded and pointless battle between the two?

The current version of html5 standard allows for both, it's Firefox and Opera that refuse to incorporate non-Free codecs into their browsers.

[Dragonbite]

**** poor??? It's a standard that's been picked up by the biggest web-sites in the world!

Just like Windows and Internet Explorer is used by the biggest companies in the world?

[thelostubunt]

how i can i post a new topic

[madnessjack]

You must have a different flash player then me.
Don't make me do a poll... I've not got the fastest computer in the galaxy (old P4 gig of ram etc, 32 bit Karmic) but I can happily watch the BBC iPlayer without problems. Yeah it's not speedy, but it's a damn sight smoother by an order of magnitude than the alternatives being proposed.


Just like Windows and Internet Explorer is used by the biggest companies in the world?
Off-topic and sarcasm aside- yes. Sorry to point it out.

[MasterNetra]

The current version of html5 standard allows for both, it's Firefox and Opera that refuse to incorporate non-Free codecs into their browsers.

I've submitted a request for a plugin for the non-free codec to mozilla & Opera.

[tica vun]

I've submitted a request for a plugin for the non-free codec to mozilla & Opera.

That's pretty redundant in my opinion, a major purpose of html5 is to allow embedded multimedia without additional plugins etc. You should be writing youtube et al to implement Free codecs instead.

[yester64]

I was just reading some on HTML 5. From what I can put together I can't see how this new standard won't be a great thing for Linux.

Apparently audio/video plug-ins will not be required ?! Goodbye flash & Quicktime woes? That's got to be a good thing for us.

What I'm not 100% clear on is how exactly media will play? If the plug-ins are just going to be server-side then is it possible that Linux support could actually get worse? Perhaps it will be up to each website to provide Linux support for viewing media?

I don't know.. I'm asking.. anybody have any opinions or facts to help straighten me out here?

No big shocker but I understand that Microsoft is the lone hold out of the major browser vendors on starting to support the new HTML 5 standard. Likely because they want to push Silverlight?

I'm looking forward to finding out more..

HTML5 does not define any codecs from what i gather.
It does however control the ability to interact with media.
I do not think that HTML5 is anything to worry. The opposite will be true.

[the yawner]

Don't make me do a poll... I've not got the fastest computer in the galaxy (old P4 gig of ram etc, 32 bit Karmic) but I can happily watch the BBC iPlayer without problems. Yeah it's not speedy, but it's a damn sight smoother by an order of magnitude than the alternatives being proposed.
Implying that the would-be standard will not improve and surpass what flash is currently offering. It's about time that our reliance on flash to provide multimedia content be deprecated.

[sdowney717]

http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html

the debate is over which video encoding standard will be used most with html5. Google wants h264 and firefox wants ogg theora. h264 is not free and mozilla may never support it.

[Frak]

http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html

the debate is over which video encoding standard will be used most with html5. Google wants h264 and firefox wants ogg theora. h264 is not free and mozilla may never support it.
The decider will be Microsoft, not Mozilla.

[chappajar]

The decider will be Microsoft, not Mozilla.

Not before IE9 has the lions share of the browser market.

[Frak]

Not before IE9 has the lions share of the browser market.
Which is not difficult for Microsoft. With their new updating techniques, people will be updating to IE9 without even realizing it.

[chappajar]

Which is not difficult for Microsoft. With their new updating techniques, people will be updating to IE9 without even realizing it.

Maybe, but IE8 still isn't anywhere near 50%, and even if IE9 does get there, it won't be for some years yet.

Google is likely to have the biggest say in this, simply because they own Youtube.
Instead of sites building for browsers, browsers must build for sites. No-one will waste their time releasing a browser that can't be made to work with Youtube.

[the yawner]

Which is not difficult for Microsoft. With their new updating techniques, people will be updating to IE9 without even realizing it.

Assuming that they still are using a version of IE in a year or two when IE9 comes out with full support of the standards, while the competition continue to release incremental updates of their browsers which give bit-by-bit support of the standards right now.

[sdowney717]

http://www.osnews.com/story/23031/Mozilla_Stick_to_Your_Ideals_Shun_H264


Now that Internet Explorer 9 has been let out its cage, we all know a great deal more about Microsoft's position towards the video codec situation with the HTML5 video tag. Microsoft has chosen for H264, a codec it already includes in Windows by default anyway. This means that apart from Firefox and Opera, every other major browser will support H264. Some are seeing this as a reason for Mozilla to give in to their ideals and include support for H264 as well - I say: Mozilla, stick to your ideals. The last people you should be listening to in matters like this are web developers.

mozilla would have to pay money for h264 licensing. likely millions.

And then the outcome is forced back to using flash
you can of course run chrome.

Crescimanno's post was picked up by Daring Fireball's John Gruber, who sided with him - nothing surprising there. "So, even those using the latest version of Firefox will be treated like they're using a legacy browser," Gruber argues, "Mozilla's intransigence in the name of 'openness' will result in Firefox users being served video using the closed Flash Player plugin, and behind the scenes the video is likely to be encoded using H.264 anyway."

[mickie.kext]

All propriatary browsers against only open source browsers... and Opera, but that one is irelevant.

I think Mozilla should file anti-trust law suit. If Mozilla gives in, Linux will not have unencumbered browser to ship out of the box... it would be down to Epiphany:(.

[samjh]

Don't be so negative. Linux also has Arora, Chromium, Midori, Konqueror, and Rekonq. And that's only the major browser projects. ;)

[Frak]

mozilla would have to pay money for h264 licensing. likely millions.

Chump change for Mozilla.

[Wiebelhaus]

mistake reply.

[sdowney717]

http://www.osnews.com/story/22787/Mozilla_Explains_Why_it_Doesn_t_License_h264

Mozilla likely will never support H264 and that likely means no benefit to users of linux running firefox and trying to experience great HTML 5 video.
Apple, MS, Google are all pushing H264 so ogg theora will likely not be used.

You can use Chrome in Linux since it will include H264 licensing codec.


yet another patent-encumbered format that alternative platforms can't make use of.
How SAD!

[sdowney717]

http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com/2010/03/mozilla-is-wrong-to-discount-h264/

more interesting comments on why Firefox should support H264
It appears, the way it is heading, Firefox will become a left behind browser if it does not support the codec..


There is a lot of danger here to Mozilla in that Chrome is gaining market share, Safari is the default browser in OS X and it is supporting H.264 and IE 9 will obviously support it as well. Microsoft is going all out with Internet Explorer 9 in an effort that appears to be focused on making it the most standards-compliant version to date and extremely high performance by using hardware graphics acceleration to help lighten the load on rendering. It is very possible that Internet Explorer 9 could end up leap-frogging Mozilla in performance unless the Electrolysis project is completed before Internet Explorer 9 is released. It will be a very hard sell at that point for Mozilla to argue that people should switch to a browser whose built-in <video> support is completely different from what they get by default on a Windows machine or a Mac. A principled position here has the potential of stopping Mozilla dead in its tracks in the browser wars.

You can of course use Chrome and get rid of flash video.

[chriswyatt]

What's W3Cs take on this, are they trying to push an open standard?

I thought the whole point of HTML5 video was so that you could enjoy video on any modern browser without having to download anything.

[Frak]

What's W3Cs take on this, are they trying to push an open standard?

I thought the whole point of HTML5 video was so that you could enjoy video on any modern browser without having to download anything.
I believe the W3C is format agnostic.

[sdowney717]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siOHh0uzcuY

googles vision for HTML5
If you join the HTML5 youtube beta, then watching this in Chrome, you will see HTML5 and in Firefox, it will be Adobe Flash.

I think Google is going to take the practical approach. That means using H264.
SO, if Firefox is the default browser and the video is encoded using H264, and Firefox wont support it, then HTML5 wont be great for linux.
Of course you can use Chrome browser.