OSNews

Nope, not at all:

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/FAQ.aspx

Q: Are all AVC essential patents included?
A: No assurance is or can be made that the License includes every essential patent. The purpose of the License is to offer a convenient licensing alternative to everyone on the same terms and to include as much essential intellectual property as possible for their convenience. Participation in the License is voluntary on the part of essential patent holders, however.

The only culprit remaining is Apple.

So the only people left out are cultists.

I see no problem.

(semi-sarcastic)

No, just... fighting to support something that doesn't want to support them, like classic Amiga users.

They exist, but there's no reason to hold back everyone else.
Hell, why would anyone use Internet Explorer in the first place???

Seriously, Microsoft doesn't care about XP any more, give it up. Leave Windows, or upgrade. It's over. The battle is lost.

So. you knew about the alternatives, and don't use XP...

Just trolling, then?

I know people use XP. My statements on XP users still stand.

It's obsolete.
Should it be? Not my decision.
Not even the users' decision. It's Microsoft's decision, and it's each user's decision whether or not to use their software.

Yeah, like... YOUTUBE.

That just means he can keep using Flash.

Until Steve bans it on MacOSX too.

Apple is a culprit because of iOS, not because of OSX.

I am quite sure Apple will roll out support for WebM on iOS quite soon, but as they are so good at milking the cow they will only allow WebM on new hardware and using that as one of the selling features. You know the whole "Upgrade to the NEW iPhone 5 and get EVEN BROADER support for online videos" all the while deliberately not enabling the support on older devices.

They will get HW support for it anyway, since Apple buys off-the-shelf graphical chips, and the makers of those have all pledged to include WebM support.

Are you aware of the change of temperatures in Hell now ?

It's not a problem of what only you need. It's a problem for developers, who can't use one format to deliver to all users (WebM), and because of that need to clutter servers with a whole bunch of duplicate options. So Apple is a culprit for causing this problem.

Any idea how to do it with mobile Safari on iOS? That's the real problem.

Who said that, and where?

If you read the article, that was one of the claims that Microsoft was making against Google. That they weren't really being open because they weren't working with the community.

What community?
How is H264 any different...

I didn't think someone would comment on FUD at this point in history, so I thought it was a comment on something that... mattered.
Sry.

Yet you're interested enough to post that you aren't. Hmmm....

Edited 2011-02-03 11:54 UTC

Yes because M$ are have the proprietry suckwarez ...

If you actually paid some attention to what Microsoft are doing with Web Development tools, they are doing some damn interesting stuff. However many on OSNews have a "Anything but Microsoft attitude".

http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/

Have a read. Some very interesting stuff that makes dev's lives easier.

You mean that everyone that has Quicktime on his system will soon have iTunes, Safari and a WebM plugin for all?

wait, would that be a good or a bad thing?

Yeah, what is wrong with user installed software. Flash doesn't work out of the box in any major browswer either, but users still manage to somehow install it when it is needed. I do not see the problem the of having users download needed codecs, as long as the browser like IE9 (and my own Konqueror incidentily) just plays anything it has a codec for.

I _do_ see a lot problems in making browsers mediaplayers and ship mediaplaying capabilities with the browser.

Whoops, sorry. Should be Media Foundation.

So the code is the spec? There's no spec that one can implement independent of Google's code?

eh? Plenty of different code that takes the same input and delivers the same output. Google's code's output from the input is the correct output. Just have to match it, looking over the source of google's code will help you, but you don't have to copy the code, though nothing is stopping you.

I have seen documents written before code, explaining what the project will be, why it's need, and very roughly how it will be done (I think any more then rough will be a lie, unless it's a clean-up rewrite). I have never seen comments written before code. What I have seen is code bases with no comments at all. Comments saying one thing when the code clearly does another, etc etc. I've seen code rewritten/refactored just so it was easier to read. In fact, I've done this more then a few times myself, often finding bugs while I'm at it (showing it needed doing). One code base from a few years back stands out in my mind where you literally couldn't read the code for the comments. It was like the result of interweaving a document and code. The best I've heard said is the "what" should be clear from the naming, the "how" should be clear from code, the "why", if not clear from the "what" and the "how" should then be documented. Sparingly one line comments in the code is ok, small blocks of comment above a function is ok, but don't obscure code with comments. Don't write documents in comments of code. Short and sweet is the key. Comments fall out of date quickly and soon become misleading. To me, the more the comments, the more it's saying refactoring is needed.

Some of us are dyslexic and find the code clearer than the comments. ;-)

Why do I feel like we mean the same thing? A wise man would say "probably because you do".

Just an addition: "Comments saying one thing when the code clearly does another" is the second biggest use I see to the comments (like the function comments I was referring to in my previous comment); the contradiction helps me find bugs! The first use I see: it helps me get down to the matter of interest faster and more easily.

If the problem is purely that the comment is wrong, which is normally the case, I'm not sure that's really a bug. Just a case of correct or delete comment. Don't think any one would argue a wrong comment is better than no comment. ;-)

I often write comments before the code...

You make an outline of comments, then you fill in the code between the comments, and it is essentially self-documenting as to what the code is supposed to do.

Obviously those aren't the only types of comments that there are, but I do that, and I know other programmers that do that too.

Each to their own, but I've not worked with any I can think of who work like that. Do you keep updating the comments or remove them as if they where scaffolding?

Usually I leave them. Those tend to be fairly short and non-specific as to the means. They say what it is doing, not how, so rarely need changed, since "what" a section is doing is usually pretty static. You may rewrite the whole thing three times, but the goal probably doesn't change.

In contrast, comments that say "how" or "why" something is done I usually add later in the process, are more detailed, and need updated more frequently.

Another reason to keep them in is they tend to be valuable down the road. Asking yourself, "Now what is this trying to accomplish?" is a recurring refrain for me when looking at old code, or someone else's code. It also helps in case the code starts to drift away from the comment... sometimes the code is actually what has gone wrong (wandered away from its original purpose) not the comment.

Edited 2011-02-03 23:26 UTC

Read my damn article, and you'll understand. Nowhere did I claim Microsoft actually said that. I *inferred* it. Can you grasp that concept?

They made it clear that they support WebM in IE9.

This would allow third parties like OEM manufacturers to bundle a WebM codec with the system, not unlike what they do with Flash player, Adobe reader, etc.

So for PCs you buy from a store, in the near future you can get Windows 7 with IE9 and WebM out-of-the-box.

It's only for those who buy retail where it's not, and you can't buy a retail copy of Windows with IE9 anyway.

I'm mildly autistic, and take offense at this.