Sanguinez

Companies can be successful and making a lot of money without taking away their users' freedom. It doesn't make them evil, but it makes me loose any interest in their products.

"What on earth are you talking about? The issue as it pertains to the spec was decided over six months ago. Here is the post by the editor of the spec saying so: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-Jun.... Neither h.264 or Theora are part of the HTML5 spec. The spec is open. Nobody is trying to force a proprietary format into the spec. For that matter, I don't recall anybody ever trying to get h.264 made part of the spec. <video> was format-agnostic from the start, just like <img>. Honestly, I have no idea where you got the idea that anybody was trying to add proprietary extensions to the spec--even Mozilla hasn't claimed that--you really don't seem to be familiar with the subject at all.

You also completely missed the point with Dirac. The point is that they are actively blocking their users from using it along with every other format except Theora. Nobody gives a shit about whether Mozilla implements it--they just want to be able to use whatever formats they like without having Mozilla play the role of Daddy--a role that nobody asked them to play and which does not follow naturally from their previously espoused values."

If you would stop twisting what I say, that would really help conversation. Where did I say h.264 is part of any spec? How is it difficult to understand the difference between flash and codecs for <video>?

You may not give a shit about what Mozilla role is but "Mozilla believes the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all." And they intend to keep it that way.

"You're doing that thing again where you pretend that everything Mozilla does is automatically the right thing just because they claim it helps freedom. I am saying that that this mistaken, and have cited a very specific thing that they have done and many specific reasons why I think so."

So far, you have only talked about how stupid it is because it's not their role (despite it's written in big on their website), people would use flash (which is not to be confused with html) or users cannot view h.264 content (how surprising). So what is your universal solution? How could you ensure any software (or even browsers derivating from Firefox) will be able to freely access all content on Internet? Just using whatever backend available isn't enough in USA.

"All you have done here is repeat your first comment, which was bullshit fanaticism that has more to do with scaring people than it does reality."

Of course it's easier to call other names than providing actual facts and logical reasoning. Again, as it is written in big on Mozilla's website: "Mozilla believes the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all." So unsurprisingly, they push back patent encumbered format because there is no good way to guarantee "the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all" with patent encumbered formats. If you have a solution for that, don't hesitate to share it, it would be very welcome by everyone.

"They already do this by letting users install Flash -- in fact, they make it particularly easy to do so, patent-encumbered though it is. And as I've pointed out before, they use Flash to play h.264 video anyway. The difference with <video> is that Mozilla is actively forbidding users from passing that supposed burden onto the operating system vendor, who in the case of Windows and Mac OS X, have already licensed h.264. In the case of free software operating systems, users can choose whether they want to have support for h.264 or not, just as they have for years with any number of other patent-encumbered formats."

Flash (or any other proprietary thing such as activex) is not part of the html or maintained by W3C. It is controlled by a private company. Flash is a proprietary technology installed as an extension for browser. What flash does is irrelevant. If people wish to only published information under proprietary extensions and limit the scope of their work, that's their problem. But introducing non-free (as in freedom) part in basic protocols is another story. Internet should be open to anyone. So please, don't mix up proprietary extensions and standards published bu W3C, which should remain open.

Regardind Mozilla's choice, it is their choice to not support patent encumbered formats. Some approve (like me), some don't. If you wish to fork it, go ahead, code is free.

About other patent-free formats: "Dirac is great. At some point we'll probably add Dirac support. However, at typical Web bit rates, Dirac doesn't currently perform as well as Theora. The patent situation with Dirac is also currently less clear than with Theora. We'll keep an eye on it." from a mozilla developer.

"You didn't actually answer my question. You keep mentioning things and then forgetting them entirely. Please just make a coherent argument or stop replying. If you're not going to talk sense, you're wasting time for both of us."

I am not here to answer all your questions :) I don't like to waste my time either so I only answer interesting parts.

"It has been made abundantly clear that they don't have to in order to allow users to use it of their own free will. Just as Apple did not have to implement Theora in order to allow users to view Theora content in <video> if they choose to do so."

And as it has also been made abundantly clear (but not enough apparently), Mozilla is fighting to keep an open web. So yes, it tries to weight in and try to keep out patent encumbered formats in core protocols. But that's why Mozilla exist: http://www.mozilla.org/causes/ and http://www.mozilla.org/causes/better.html

"He didn't, actually. He made a lot of emotional appeals that fly in the face of reality and then breezily dismissed every other argument in a single concluding paragraph. I know this because I already read it: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1073718

"He didn't, actually. He made a lot of emotional appeals that fly in the face of reality and then breezily dismissed every other argument in a single concluding paragraph. I know this because I already read it: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1073718

Would have it been easier for you if he had he written "I want to make sure that for anyone, there isn’t a big piece of it (video) that they can’t afford to participate in." ?

"The burden of what? Deciding what video content is acceptable? Like I said before, that should not be Mozilla's role, but it's the one they've taken on."

The burden of dealing with patent encumbered formats. Someone would have to pay or it would remain illegal. As Firefox developers develop Firefox, they have their say in what do or don't do Firefox. And even if they pay it wouldn't be free since there would be strings attached.

"Yes...and? What's your point?"

My point is simple and has remained the same from the very beginning: h.264 is not compatible with an open and free (as in freedom) internet. Therefore implementing h.264 is either not compatible with free software, not an issue in countries where software patents don't exists, or done in an illegal manner. So here we go again: How much would someone value his freedom?

This guy explains it in much better terms than I could: http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codec...

This is still about an open web. Using gstreamer would just be passing the burden onto others without solving much. Users would be able to watch h264 videos, but they wouldn't be aware of patent issues and wouldn't care since it works for them.

I agree that ironically they could still use flash to access youtube (even though they eem to take all the votes for theora in consideration), but there are also big websites using theora such as dailymotion or wikipedia. But there is a huge differene between a html tag and a plug-in.

Any stats to back up your wild claims and non-sense assumptions?

Then users shouldn't use patent encumbered formats. Simple as that. There already been enough mess by formats supported by browser X but not Y.

Their actions come from their values. And they happen to value an open web and free software. So yes, it is actually useful.

And then, how would you qualify apple by not supporting theora in safari? They are keeping their users from watching videos from wikipedia. You still end up with a big mess.

Just to be clear. From OSI (see http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd ): "1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

There is a huge difference between "not valuing freedom" and "valuing advantage X more than freedom". This is not all or nothing. This is not a case of "you are either with us or against us".

Repeating "stupid" and "dumb" over and over will not make it real. They don't restrict anyone either, they just stick to their values.

Why is it bullshit? I never implied anything about you/

How using H.264 would be beneficial to free software and open standards?

This is really about how much you value your freedom. About at what point you will abandon your freedom for any other advantage, such as hardware support (proprietary drivers in the linux kernel for instance) or performance (h.264 vs theora in this case). So this more about being willing to sacrifice a little bit of performance for your freedom than looking for best performances at all costs. Theora is getting continuously improved and is catching up little by little. They may also be some other company releasing some other codecs under free software-friendly licenses, who knows? But in the mean time, what is more important to you (as a user, in general): performance or freedom?

So if you don't care about your freedom, it is understandable you wouldn't care less about theora vs h.264. If you would care a little bit more, you would be ready to compromise on some parts, and if you have a long beard, you wouldn't compromise at all.

And I am also wondering, if mozilla starts accepting patented or proprietary technologies, where would you draw the line? How would you ensure Mozilla's products remain free (as in freedom)

Yes I mean software freedom. Well, free software (whether it is GNU/GPL or BSD-like) allow you to sell it. But how could it remain free (as in freedom) if redistribution has strings attached?

VLC's faq should give you some answer :

Regarding Patentable Inventions, the second paragraph of article 52 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) states:

    The following (..) shall not be regarded as [patentable] inventions: scientific theories and mathematical methods; (...) programs for computers (...). 

Please note however that the combination of software with hardware may yield something patentable. As such, if you do make a hardware product with VideoLAN software, you may conceivably need to obtain patent licenses for the hardware parts.

So it looks like your value your freedom to $0.20.

"And remember, I am still allowed to do anything I want with the code. I just have to give MPEG-LA half a can of beer do it." Then free software would'nt be ablo to be free software. You cannot preserve freedom this way.

Ah so if YOU don't worry about, I guess everything is going to be fine :)

It just depends how much you value your freedom.

It reminds me that: http://www.dragonflylodge.org/foaf/dns4people.html

I think I am gonna work on a side project around that.

That's a very limited way of looking at free software. Free software gives you some very important freedom you wouldn't have otherwise. It also improves software quality ("given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.") and development.

As a user I could as well contract a company to adapt, develop or/and support a free software to my needs. As an example there are all these companies providing services for nagios. Companies could as well share the cost of a developer to build a software they need.

When I say logs, I mean all sort of logs (network, system, app...). So that include auth logs, apache logs and so on.

There isn't one single solution to cover all angles. So yes, logs are useful but won't protect you either. And yes, they could help you to discover intrusion.

Regarding authentication, you could use public/private key auth for ssh. This is stronger than passwords. You could also use two factors authentication (look for yubikey for an example)

And yes, such a tool exist: for instance tripwire.

* you use logs so you can be aware of suspicious events at network, system and app level

* you have scripts to analyze these logs and notify you if anything suspicious happens. This is faster, can be done more often and is less tedious for you

* you have some reference files somewhere so you can compare checksums