What is Digg?118 Comments
- z0mbie2099, on 04/14/2008, -6/+125Thank god, we finally have an open source challenger to Adobe's Flash. Hopefully we can get rid of Flash for good & prevent those mysteriously spontaneous browser crashes.
- Stonekeeper, on 04/14/2008, -4/+60A royalty free media framework for the web would be awesome. There's nothing better than free, apart from Free.
- Eldoo77, on 04/14/2008, -1/+47Um... huh? Solaris -- Great Kernel (think DTrace, ZFS, etc...). Java -- Best Enterprise development tool & only legitimate Open Source competitor to MS .NET. OpenSolaris -- cool, community-focused "distro-like" version of Solaris. Sure lots of companies turn out their share of garbage, but overall Sun's contribution to software in general is very positive.
- MasteRR, on 04/14/2008, -2/+41Whats wrong with OGG/Theora and OGG/Vorbis? How about improve that instead of making yet another format. There is enough codecs as it is.
- sfacets, on 04/14/2008, -2/+40Go Sun!
- mCanada, on 04/14/2008, -7/+44Hi-def rickroll?
- punkcat, on 04/14/2008, -11/+47yay another codec, just what the world was screaming for.
- DigitAl56K, on 04/14/2008, -1/+33There already is one, it's called Ogg Theora:
http://theora.org/benefits - 32bitwonder, on 04/14/2008, -5/+37PC World - "OMS video is to be based on H.26x technology."
Before we get too excited, one might want to have a look at x.264 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X264), a highly rated H.26x based open source codec. It doesn't look like Sun in bringing anything new to the table other than trying to get their name attached to "the next big thing". - pHr34kY, on 04/14/2008, -0/+24Hmm.. these guys should really talk to the guys at Xiph.org. They've already got a royalty-free open codec (Theora). However it could do with a little bit of work.
If Sun partners with Xiph on this one, I'd be happy. The Vorbis audio codec would compliment a FOSS video codec nicely. - sq377, on 04/14/2008, -2/+24It's progressing too slowly
- muniak, on 04/14/2008, -1/+21http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X264
- mazza558, on 04/14/2008, -1/+19What happened to Gnash?
- inactive, on 04/14/2008, -2/+20Come on people, there's already Ogg -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg
This will only create more codec confusion. - uptown, on 04/14/2008, -2/+20GIVE ME ANOTHER CODEC
- pHr34kY, on 04/14/2008, -0/+16..and to anwser my own question, it was in the FAQ:
http://blogs.sun.com/openmediacommons/entry/oms_vi ...
What do you plan to use for an audio format?
- We expect to include Xiph Vorbis.
w00t! If they're smart they'd adapt the ogg container too. - sam98597, on 04/14/2008, -2/+17GIVE ME ANOTHER CODEC!
- Patori, on 04/14/2008, -3/+17I'm getting sick of the overuse of the word 'epic' or 'epic fail' for non-epic or non-non-epic things. It's just lame attempts to get a chuckle.
- zzz@tkz, on 04/14/2008, -2/+16GIVE ME ANOTHER CODEC!!
- koko775, on 04/14/2008, -1/+14Indeed. It was even designed to minimize patent threat. Why can't we just have very public, very strong support for Theora and Vorbis?
- frontporsche, on 04/14/2008, -2/+13Sun rocks!
- zeeky, on 04/14/2008, -1/+11quicktime is so good i agree, but the windows implementation is total crap. its soooo slow and buggy, and there isnt even quicktime for linux, i dont believe. apple could make quicktime good, and i dont see why they dont invest a little more time into it...
- Culyt, on 04/14/2008, -2/+12Nothing happened to Gnash, thats just the problem...
Even if Gnash worked, Flash is for vector graphics, why do we need a vector graphics engine for streaming video. Its not its intended purpose, it is low quality, lacks many features, has audio sync bugs and such. - KevinJim, on 04/14/2008, -0/+9Something completely irrelevant but... why the ***** Diggnation stopped the Ogg/Theora files ?
- koko775, on 04/14/2008, -2/+11Because Ogg {Vorbis,Theora} really rolls off the tongue, as opposed to Ogg. Come on now, you know what he meant.
- psxman, on 04/14/2008, -3/+11Says the person who doesn't know the difference between a container format and a video codec.
- ldog, on 04/14/2008, -1/+9It's a codec, the contents of a binary file format. It's not "programmed" in any language. It's not a program, it's a specification for data.
A player for media files using this codec can be programmed in any language with the capability of opening a file and displaying video.
If you can't make that distinction, you're probably not the most qualified person to make assessments on the quality of programming languages. - MasteRR, on 04/14/2008, -1/+8Is that really the important part? And MPEG and MP3 are good names? DivX is a good name?
What makes a tech name a good name? Please let me know. I can tell you that most likely there is at least a few pieces of software that you use RIGHT NOW with names you probably consider stupid. - abbathdoom, on 04/14/2008, -0/+7The BBC has been developing a codec for some time now which is as good if not better than the current H.246 technology but totally open source and totaly royalty free. They are now negotiating funding from several other big media companies who see it a possible solution to offer online video at a fraction of the price due to not paying royalties for the codec each time a video is streamed or downloaded as they are currently doing. From what I read this codec IS the future of video. Read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_%28codec%29
Also, all you people moaning about yet another video codec... Don't you get it? If an open standard takes off then you will only need one codec from then on. This is a good thing. It's also a good thing that broadcasters wont need to pay royalties because it means better, cheaper shows for us. - parkermauney, on 04/14/2008, -1/+8Quicktime is about 10 times slower than a video player should be.
- pHr34kY, on 04/14/2008, -0/+7Although the Ogg Theora codec only made v1.0 a few months ago, the underlying technology is pretty outdated.
OMS will be based on the 1989 h261 standard! - RADicalSatDude, on 04/14/2008, -0/+7Opera has already demoed development for native OGG/Theora playback. Just so we can get rid of all this plug-ins nonsense.
http://my.opera.com/ResearchWizard/blog/experiment ... - KloroFormd, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7That's how the old days were, where 90% of videos wouldn't load because you didn't have the correct codec, causing you to go guess at which ones you need because there was no info telling you.
Let's avoid that... - sq377, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7752/capslockor ...
- Terr01, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7Hey, if they can get it *packaged* and promoted, that's a pretty big deal. There are plenty of technically-good open source projects languishing because their developers only develop with other developers in mind.
- inactive, on 04/14/2008, -2/+8You're an epic douchebag.
- MudMan69, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5x.264 is an implementation of H.264 (MPEG-4 AVC). It is based on patented algorithms which puts in in an ambiguous legal situation in some circumstances. It appears that Sun is trying to avoid this by creating a codec unencumbered by software patents. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC
- LucasVB, on 04/14/2008, -5/+10Yet another codec is exactly what we DON'T need right now. There are already a bunch of nice and free codecs that are ready to be used on the web. The issue here is implementing one as a standard, not creating a new one. That will just make things worse.
- crump199, on 04/14/2008, -2/+6I'm just sick of the word epic all together.
- faithfreedom, on 04/14/2008, -3/+7Challenging the status quo. That's the spirit of free market!
- jasmus, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5how does one "boost the web" ??
- killbert24, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5I'm really looking forward to this. I like seeing how companies can create great video with low file sizes, etc. It's great for the internet and computer industry!
- fkr3, on 04/14/2008, -3/+7Epic sick or just sick?
- Terr01, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5I've had quite good results developing programs with it to 3D visualization, and multicast network transfers. (And yes, they look like a native application wherever you run 'em.)
Yes, there is a startup time cost. Yes, memory is a little heavier than if I wrote all the memory management stuff at a lower level. But does it fit what I want to accomplish? Yes.
If I were making very short-term command line programs? No. Something super-duper high performance? No. But generally you just need something stable and acceptable, since software is so often neither. - oneredeye, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4I remember Free, they rocked.
- scy1192, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5don't we already have enough of those? *kicks x264, ogg, and xvid*
- MasteRR, on 04/14/2008, -2/+6Maybe, but think of the codecs that are usually in a OGG wrapper, Vorbis, Theora, or FLAC. All of which are royalty free thus his point still stands. I've never seen anyone use OGG with any codec other than one of those 3.
- Darkhacker, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3Azureus, yes. OpenOffice, no. OpenOffice is largely C++ with only a few components (such as parts of Base as well as some extensions) are written in Java. In fact, if you disable Java, OpenOffice runs a lot faster.
- millifoo, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3"a highly rated H.26x based open source codec."
It's not free. The source is open, USING it isn't. An unlimited use license (the kind of thing you need unless you're tracking explicitly where your software is going and pay per-unit fees) costs millions per year. - fkr3, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4That's asuming Sun can make this work, make it work better and get it out there to 99% of people like Adobe/Macromedia has managed to do, and assuming Adobe doesn't manage to pull their heads out of their asses along the way and make things more efficient and/or working.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 118 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 