Linked by Kroc Camen on Thu 29th Apr 2010 23:04 UTC
Permalink for comment 421680
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
Just a minor nitpick ... my Linux machine does include a h264 decoder. It is embedded in the video card hardware.
Since I paid for the video card hardware, I therefore have a paid-for licenase, so my Linux machine does in fact include a legal, licensed h264 decoder. Out of the box. It is simply that this decoder was not shipped with the Linux distribution OS software, but rather it was shipped with the ATI graphics card hardware.
Now, if only ATI would release the specs for the API to this part of the graphics card hardware then I could actually use it (as I am entitled to do as a purchaser of an ATI graphics card) under Linux with the open source ATI driver.
Until everyone can use what they have legally purchased, h264 remains an unsuitable codec for video on the web. Other protocls used for the web (e.g. HTML, CSS, SVG, ECMAscript, DOM, et al) all meet the requirement that they be royalty-free. There is NO reason why the video codec used on the web should fail to meet this requirement also.
Edited 2010-04-30 02:03 UTC