Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Flash for Linux -- It's Not for UsersFlash for Linux -- It's Not for UsersPosted Feb 16, 2007 11:56 UTC (Fri) by pheldens (guest, #19366)In reply to: Flash for Linux -- It's Not for Users by endecotp Parent article: Flash for Linux -- It's Not for Designers (internetnews.com)
Think it's partly because of youtube and google video using it,
They could ofcourse also agree on a simple self invented standard there, say xvid or theora and some simplified standardized embedding wrapper glue everyone can use, and make a small multiplatform oss plugin for it, but then the problem is to get people to install it, people who already have adopted flash now, will not want to take an extra step.
Maybe that new stuff the BBC comes up with will give online video a boost.
(Log in to post comments)
Flash for Linux -- It's Not for Users Posted Feb 16, 2007 12:27 UTC (Fri) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link] Isn't that rather sidestepping the question - why did google and youtube choose it? Perhaps the answer is the rest of the para (which I admit to not fully understanding): i.e. 'less problematic than local videoplayers'.
How is the GNU flash project coming along? Not being able to follow youtube or google video links _is_ annoying. But x86-only solutions are completely useless to me.
Flash for Linux -- It's Not for Users Posted Feb 16, 2007 12:42 UTC (Fri) by debacle (subscriber, #7114) [Link] In fact, I have no problem with Flash video (.flv), which is displayed by mplayer nicely. Not in the browser window, but if one sends me a youtube link, I use youtube-dl anyway.
Flash for Linux -- It's Not for Users Posted Feb 16, 2007 14:23 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Isn't that rather sidestepping the question - why did google and youtube choose it? Google Video used modified version of VLC initially. They switched to Flash later. And the reason is obvious: Flash is already installed on millions of desktops, any other plugin must be installed manually. End of story. Flash won. The fate of any other player will be the same. Of course it can be good idea to offer something other as "premium" content (better quality, for example), but here the patents are big problem...
Flash for Linux -- It's Not for Users Posted Feb 16, 2007 17:57 UTC (Fri) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link] > Flash is already installed on millions of desktops, any other plugin> must be installed manually.
I feared that this was the case but wasn't sure.
Perhaps if Mozilla could be persuaded to ship with MPEG support built in, that would help a bit. Are there any major technical, legal or other obstacles to that?
Flash for Linux -- It's Not for Users Posted Feb 20, 2007 1:07 UTC (Tue) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] Well, MPEG is heavily patented in a number of regions. So Mozilla.org would either have to risk being sued or pay a per-unit royalty for each browser they distribute. Not really feasible.
Flash for Linux -- It's Not for Users Posted Feb 17, 2007 5:53 UTC (Sat) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] The platforms took too long to deploy friendly, well working, universally installed browser plugins for video formats.
You can blame this largely on turf wars over formats, patents, imprecise specifications and so on. Macromedia/Adobe, who was getting their little bundle of binaries installed pretty much everywhere somehow (by default? not sure, but certainly it shows up on most web-enabled computers), added a video format and provided a way to create "reliable" user interfaces for it. When I say "reliable" I mean that the interface can be expected to be the same on the computers on which it works at all, which some people value (I do not).
In short, Microsoft, Apple, Real and others all failed due to stupidity and roadblocks, and Macromedia/Adobe succeeded by setting the bar a bit lower.
Flash for Linux -- It's Not for Users Posted Feb 16, 2007 20:51 UTC (Fri) by job (guest, #670) [Link] I never had any problem just clicking the 'download' button in Google Video and playing the resulting avi in xine/mplayer.
Is that avi a flash video? Somehow I doubt it.
I know youtube uses flash, in youtube I have to use Video Downloader and the resulting file is a flv file (which mplayer plays perfectly by the way, probably illegally where software patents are an issue). But flv is a horrible movie format, both in quality and functionality.
Flash for Linux -- It's Not for Users Posted Feb 17, 2007 6:00 UTC (Sat) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] Google video's primary interface at this time is FLV (VP6??) served via flash methods played by the flash video player with flash interface.
They have, as you say, always provided AVI enclosed files (the files identify themselves as encoded by XVID) which are superior in bandwidth, quality, and cpu overhead. However, this is a minority feature. Some videos have it turned off (???) and it's labelled "download", and most people just watch the video in flash "without downloading". (Yes, I know obviously streaming and downloading are the same thing but users and media companies seem intent on pretending otherwise.)
I'm not sure how Google stores the files internally, and whether it converts once or on the fly.
I would, btw, not describe mplayer's flv playback as "perfect". It's certainly adequate though.
|
|||||||||||