Adobe Flash 10.1

MorphingDragon · #1 17th November 2009, 06:18 PM

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=822083

Guess what? Adobe decided to fix up flash. Guess what else? The Unixs don't get that hardware accelerated lovin.

What happened to OpenCL as an option.

The drivers for it are at least in beta for Linux.

adrianx · #2 17th November 2009, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

Guess what else? The Unixs don't get that hardware accelerated lovin.

I find myself in a very "conspiracy theory" kind of mood tonight, as I often do, but is it because they can't, or is it because they are helping to ensure that that people view the *nixes as 2nd class citizens? Why is it so difficult to port the code? Oh, I forget, stupid patent laws that are supposed to help technology grow.

MorphingDragon · #3 17th November 2009, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adrianx

I find myself in a very "conspiracy theory" kind of mood tonight, as I often do, but is it because they can't, or is it because they are helping to ensure that that people view the *nixes as 2nd class citizens? Why is it so difficult to port the code? Oh, I forget, stupid patent laws that are supposed to help technology grow.

Apple seem to be the only company that stands up to Adobe... oh and Microsoft. Silverlight runs better on mac OSX.

lovenemesis · #4 17th November 2009, 07:50 PM

I tried their 10.1 Linux version on F12.

No improvement for CPU overload.

Well, it seems that flash 10.1 for Linux is meaningless.

adrianx · #5 17th November 2009, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

Apple seem to be the only company that stands up to Adobe... oh and Microsoft. Silverlight runs better on mac OSX.

I don't view Silverlight as an alternative. Isn't just another thing that complicates web standards even further?

MorphingDragon · #6 17th November 2009, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lovenemesis

I tried their 10.1 Linux version on F12.

No improvement for CPU overload.

Well, it seems that flash 10.1 for Linux is meaningless.

OMG I have to hug your avatar. @_@

Edit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by adrianx

I don't view Silverlight as an alternative. Isn't just another thing that complicates web standards even further?

Its better than flash either way. Why can't Google/Apple and Mozilla decide on an HTML5 Video codec?

BlueC · #7 17th November 2009, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

Its better than flash either way. Why can't Google/Apple and Mozilla decide on an HTML5 Video codec?

Because Apple suck.

MorphingDragon · #8 18th November 2009, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueC

Because Apple suck.

You do realize Mozilla is the only organisation not pushing a standard video codec right? Firefox is the IE of the HTML5 world!

Chrome/Safari/Opera = h.264
Firefox = ogg video container

BlueC · #9 18th November 2009, 01:18 AM

I'm with Mozilla on that one, I'd prefer to see ogg adopted as standard.

MorphingDragon · #10 18th November 2009, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueC

I'm with Mozilla on that one, I'd prefer to see ogg adopted as standard.

So you'd prefer the lesser quality, non-hardware accelerated codec? Wow... I thought people like you only appeard on Apple forums.

Egimicate Yourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264

BlueC · #11 18th November 2009, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

So you'd prefer the lesser quality, non-hardware accelerated codec? Wow... I thought people like you only appeard on Apple forums.

Egimicate Yourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264

Hi Steve, good of you to drop by!

I don't think you're going to find much support on a Fedora forum for your patent encumbered H264 codec as it pretty much flies in the face of the Fedora mission and values, but good luck trying! It is included in rpmfusion as a necessary evil, but in its current state will never make it into Fedora.

Also try getting some facts rather than just thriving off your own apple propaganda. If people adopt theora (which is *truly* open) then hardware acceleration will follow so that is a nonsense argument. As for lesser quality, that is highly debatable and largely depends on the bitrate you choose to encode at.

What isn't debatable is that ogg theora is a truly open standard that could liberate video encoding/decoding if enough people and organisations get behind it.

What we really need is for more people to get behind Ogg Theora including Google and the BBC then the development could rapidly overtake h264 and we could all enjoy truly open video.

Some bedtime reading for you:

http://blog.mozilla.com/schrep/2008/...e-one-we-have/

Chris

MorphingDragon · #12 18th November 2009, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueC

Hi Steve, good of you to drop by!

I don't think you're going to find much support on a Fedora forum for your patent encumbered H264 codec as it pretty much flies in the face of the Fedora mission and values, but good luck trying! It is included in rpmfusion as a necessary evil, but in its current state will never make it into Fedora.

Also try getting some facts rather than just thriving off your own apple propaganda. If people adopt theora (which is *truly* open) then hardware acceleration will follow so that is a nonsense argument. As for lesser quality, that is highly debatable and largely depends on the bitrate you choose to encode at.

What isn't debatable is that ogg theora is a truly open standard that could liberate video encoding/decoding if enough people and organisations get behind it.

What we really need is for more people to get behind Ogg Theora including Google and the BBC then the development could rapidly overtake h264 and we could all enjoy truly open video.

Some bedtime reading for you:

http://blog.mozilla.com/schrep/2008/...e-one-we-have/

Chris

You're accusing me of propaganda!? Oh the delicious irony. I bet you have RPMFusion Repos active so anything you say is a moot point.
BTW, my names' Rob nice to meet you. FTR I came here to give people some news, you're the one who started Company Bashing.

BlueC · #13 18th November 2009, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

I bet you have RPMFusion Repos active so its a moot point.

Haha, you don't get it at all do you? It's not a moot point at all, did you even get as far as reading the title of that article?

"Building the world we want, not the one we have"

That says everything really.

rpmfusion exists precisely *because* of this problem and in the world we have it is unfortunately a necessary evil. If we support the open and non-encumbered formats then rpmfusion disappears and we can all benefit from open and non-encumbered software and standards.

MorphingDragon · #14 18th November 2009, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueC

Haha, you don't get it at all do you? It's not a moot point at all, did you even get as far as reading the title of that article?

"Building the world we want, not the one we have"

That says everything really.

rpmfusion exists precisely *because* of this problem and in the world we have it is unfortunately a necessary evil. If we support the open and non-encumbered formats then rpmfusion disappears and we can all benefit from open and non-encumbered software and standards.

Ah, the good 'ol days of Linux/FOSS troll baiting.

moosepig · #15 22nd November 2009, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueC

Because Apple suck.

their sales will plummet when people read this well-constructed argument. im away now to throw out my ipod and powerbook. i cant believe how misled i was.