backtop


Print 51 comment(s) - last by The Raven.. on Jan 14 at 5:54 PM


Chrome will no longer support h.264 video, leaving Microsoft and Apple as the only players who support the proprietary codec.
Says it will only support open and free codecs

In a surprising move, Google has abandoned support for the h.264 video codec, used (among other codecs) to power HTML5 video in its Chrome browser.  The company writes [blog]:

We expect even more rapid innovation in the web media platform in the coming year and are focusing our investments in those technologies that are developed and licensed based on open web principles. To that end, we are changing Chrome’s HTML5 support to make it consistent with the codecs already supported by the open Chromium project. Specifically, we are supporting the WebM (VP8) and Theora video codecs, and will consider adding support for other high-quality open codecs in the future. Though H.264 plays an important role in video, as our goal is to enable open innovation, support for the codec will be removed and our resources directed towards completely open codec technologies. 

The move is extremely significant as it leaves Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 (test builds) and Apple's Safari 5 as the only browsers on the market that support the codec.

The debate over what codec should be used for HTML5 web video has been a contentious one and a partisan debate among browser makers who ultimately have to make the choice for their customers.

The group that licenses h.264, which Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs notably holds stock in, recently came out promising not to charge consumers or web developers to use its video standard for free web video.  It does still plan to charge for paid video or internal websites.  Advocates, though, argue that h.264 offers the best video quality.

Critics oppose the fact that h.264 is proprietary and not always free.  They tend to support either Ogg Theora or WebM.  

Theora is supported by Firefox, Opera, and Google Chrome, with Mozilla being its biggest advocate.  However, Apple has raised an interesting argument against Theora, claiming that unknown “phantom” patents may exist that could result in lawsuits against browser-makers and web developers if the codec became broadly used.  They claim these patent holders may merely be lying in wait, watching for the ideal time to strike.

The final alternative is WebM.  Whereas Theora is based on an open-source release of On2 Technologies’ older V3 codec (proprietary), WebM is an open-source release based on the newer V8 codec.  VP8/WebM is supported by Opera, Google Chrome, and Firefox.

The loss of Google shifts the balance of power in favor of both Theora and VP8/WebM – but with Microsoft supporting h.264, the proprietary codec is still very much in the game.  The web video mess seems unlikely to sort itself out anytime soon.  That's unhappy news for web developers who have to encode video for all three formats, and put additional HTML tags anywhere there's video.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By ltcommanderdata on 1/12/2011 10:08:29 AM , Rating: 4
So I can understand Google taking a moral stand for "open innovation" as they said in their announcement and dropping H.264, but them continuing to ship Chrome with Adobe Flash built-in must mean they feel that Adobe Flash is also an example of the future of the internet and an example of open innovation. Somehow I doubt most people are going to agree with that though.

Keeping Flash certainly isn't for pragmatic reasons. If it was H.264 support would have been kept too given the large amount of content already available for it and most importantly that H.264 has widespread hardware acceleration. I'm curious why the article doesn't mention this point. Chrome was known previously has a fast, lighter-weight browser. People with slower processors, like those with netbooks are going to be affected by the lack of hardware acceleration for WebM compared to H.264.

And is Android dropping H.264 from their browser in Android? I'd like to see how battery-life does there on WebM.




By bug77 on 1/12/2011 10:41:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So I can understand Google taking a moral stand for "open innovation" as they said in their announcement and dropping H.264, but them continuing to ship Chrome with Adobe Flash built-in must mean they feel that Adobe Flash is also an example of the future of the internet and an example of open innovation. Somehow I doubt most people are going to agree with that though.


There's no conflict there. Google kept H264 around as long as there was no viable alternative. And currently there's no alternative to Flash. HTML5 may take over in some areas, but it has to be ratified first.


By kmmatney on 1/12/2011 4:19:48 PM , Rating: 4
I'm pretty sure their keeping flash because its used so widely for advertising.


By niva on 1/12/2011 5:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
And how many flash based google ads are there? Google's own advertising is overwhelmingly built into their products and is NOT flash based.

And please don't bring up the youtube ads which appear when you're watching video, those could just as easily be overlaid into an HTML5 container.


By Fritzr on 1/12/2011 7:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
Flash licensing is out in the open and widely available at acceptable costs.

Google's stand here appears to be that the h264 today is in a position similar to mp3 before Frauenhofer announced their patent ownership and royalty/license claims.

If the patent owners involved in h264 came forward and stated their position Google *might* reconsider since there would no longer be an ambush waiting, just licensing discussions with a visible rightsholder.

As far as h264 support in browsers not bundling it, it can be inserted in the same manner as Flash often is. A third party extension to the browser and voila h264 support without any hazard to the browser developer.


By bug77 on 1/13/2011 7:21:26 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think the problem is the use in browser. The patent owners already said they will not charge for that (though that declaration is probably not legally binding).
The problem is, if HTML5 mandates H264, the content producer still has to pay for the license to encode the media.

You see codec=coder+decoder. The browser only needs the decoder part and that's the only part that's free about H264.


By Tony Swash on 1/14/2011 8:32:33 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Flash licensing is out in the open and widely available at acceptable costs.


Why do you guys continue to defend a buggy, insecure, inefficient piece of utterly closed and proprietary software like Flash? Is it the principle of "my enemies enemy is my friend"? If so its piss poor reason.

And then there was this:

quote:
Perhaps motivated by growing interest from the FTC and a cascade of ongoing lawsuits against companies who have leveraged an under-used portion of Flash technology, Adobe in a blog post has addressed a weakness in the implementation of "Flash cookies," or as Adobe calls them "local shared objects" (LSOs) that allowed other websites -- not Adobe itself -- to track user behavior even after a user has cleared the traditional web "cookie," thus violating their privacy.


http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplatform/2011/01/on-im...

Defending Flash because of its claimed ubiquity is like claiming that Windows has the advantage of being compatible with 99.9% of known computer viruses.


By VitalyTheUnknown on 1/12/2011 10:53:32 AM , Rating: 2
Flash Player Will Support VP8

http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplatform/2010/05/adobe...

We are excited to include the VP8 video codec in Flash Player in an upcoming release...


what a pain
By RamarC on 1/12/2011 9:23:28 AM , Rating: 2
My entire video collection is h.264 encoded MP4s. I bring them into work (which is still on XP) and watch them via Chrome while doing lengthy db tasks. I guess I gotta find another viewer that software police won't notice.




RE: what a pain
By sviola on 1/12/2011 10:09:39 AM , Rating: 2
Well, you can keep Chrome from updating. Or run a protable media viewer from your pen-drive. Try this one:

http://portableapps.com/apps/music_video/vlc_porta...


RE: what a pain
By RamarC on 1/12/2011 3:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
thanks!


RE: what a pain
By Kurz on 1/12/2011 11:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
MPC has a run on its own version as well.
It doesn't require an install to function and it should decode h.264 right off the bat.


RE: what a pain
By a1trips on 1/13/2011 9:48:32 AM , Rating: 2
on a side note, i love that job you have, DBA watching videos FTW.


RE: what a pain
By a1trips on 1/13/2011 9:48:46 AM , Rating: 2
on a side note, i love that job you have, DBA watching videos FTW.


Don't be evil.....
By Tony Swash on 1/12/2011 6:27:21 PM , Rating: 2
“Znu”, on Slashdot:

quote:
This serves two strategic purposes for Google.

First, it advances a codec that’s de facto controlled by Google at the expense of a codec that is a legitimate open standard controlled by a multi-vendor governance process managed by reputable international standards bodies.

And second, it will slow the transition to HTML5 and away from Flash by creating more confusion about which codec to use for HTML5 video, which benefits Google by hurting Apple (since Apple doesn’t want to support Flash), but also sucks for users.

It is, in other words, a thoroughly nasty bit of work. It's not quite as bad as selling consumers down the river to Verizon on 'net neutrality, but it's close. And if Google is actually successful in making WebM, not H.264, the standard codec for web video, they're literally going to render hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tablets, smartphones, set-top boxes, etc. with H.264 hardware support obsolete.

"But wait!", the OSS fans are saying. "Isn't Google really standing up for freedom and justice, because H.264 requires evil patent licensing?"

No. Expert opinion [multimedia.cx] is that WebM infringes on numerous patents in the H.264 pool, and will need a licensing pool of its own to be set up, just like Microsoft's VC-1 did. So the patents are a wash. This is Google manipulating the market entirely for selfish advantage here, and it's all the worse because they're pretending otherwise. And it's going to be really frustrating watching people fall for it.


By Tim Sneath
quote:

An Open Letter from the President of the United States of Google

The world’s ability to communicate with one another is a key factor in its rapid evolution and economic growth. The Esperanto language was invented last century as a politically neutral language that would foster peace and international understanding. Since the launch, we’ve seen first-hand the benefits of a constructed language:

• A pure form of communication that is unsullied by cultural context;

• Broad adoption by as many as 10,000 speakers

• Independent (yet mostly compatible) dialects that not only bring additional choice for speakers also foster healthy competition and innovation

We expect even more communication between people in the coming year and are therefore focusing our investments in languages that are created based on constructed language principles. To that end, we are changing the spoken and written language of this nation to make it consistent with the form of speech already supported by the Language Creation Society. Specifically, we are supporting the Esperanto and Klingon languages, and will consider adding support for other high-quality constructed languages in the future. Though English plays an important role in speech today, as our goal is to enable open innovation, its further use as a form of communication in this country will be prohibited and our resources directed towards languages that are untainted by real-world usage.

These changes will occur in the next couple months but we are announcing them now to give citizens using other languages an opportunity to translate the libraries of the world into Esperanto.


The source
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/tims/archive/2011/01/11/an...




RE: Don't be evil.....
By sprockkets on 1/12/2011 10:33:13 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, really, you are dumb.

quote:
First, it advances a codec that’s de facto controlled by Google at the expense of a codec that is a legitimate open standard controlled by a multi-vendor governance process managed by reputable international standards bodies.


That codec is in the open domain, NO ONE PERSON CONTROLS IT.

Second, history has shown that patent trolls have and will show up suing over h.264.

quote:
And second, it will slow the transition to HTML5 and away from Flash by creating more confusion about which codec to use for HTML5 video, which benefits Google by hurting Apple (since Apple doesn’t want to support Flash), but also sucks for users.


Right, and W3C doesn't want to specify the codec. Who's really at fault?

quote:
No. Expert opinion [multimedia.cx] is that WebM infringes on numerous patents in the H.264 pool, and will need a licensing pool of its own to be set up, just like Microsoft's VC-1 did. So the patents are a wash. This is Google manipulating the market entirely for selfish advantage here, and it's all the worse because they're pretending otherwise. And it's going to be really frustrating watching people fall for it.


So why didn't they sue WebM when On2 made it? Why now? H.264 may infringe on webm as well. So?


RE: Don't be evil.....
By Tony Swash on 1/13/2011 6:01:07 AM , Rating: 2
If this is all about openness then why not just support H264 and WebM.

The two codecs are not exclusive of each other.

You can run both at the same time.

How is removing an option more open than keeping it?

Why not have both?

Isn't supporting both codecs the most open option?


RE: Don't be evil.....
By sprockkets on 1/13/2011 11:54:43 AM , Rating: 2
In order to be a W3C standard, it has to be royalty free.

H.264 is NOT 100% royalty free.

Therefore, for the web, webm is the only choice for a royalty free, plugin free browser to view video.

Also a good read

http://www.osnews.com/story/24245/10_Questions_for...

Not 100% covering all the points, but still.


Prepare for a better Codec
By Kurz on 1/12/2011 9:18:49 AM , Rating: 3
H.264 is an awesome Codec, however I remember Google buying out a company developing a Codec even better than H.264 for all bitrates. So I guess they are trying to push their own standard.

http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2010/05/google-ope...




By ZachDontScare on 1/12/2011 2:55:03 PM , Rating: 2
Thats the WebM mentioned in the article. Theora was also developed by that company.


RE: Prepare for a better Codec
By Sivar on 1/12/2011 8:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
That is Google's WebM, and it it is strictly inferior to x264 in terms of video quality at a given file size/bit rate.
See:
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377

http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h...

WebM's only advantage is that it is theoretically patent-free, though it actually 'borrows' quite a bit from h.264, so I doubt that advantage as well.


Pretty simple for me.
By messele on 1/12/2011 9:36:20 AM , Rating: 3
I use Google services hourly, every day but I could abandon them in a heartbeat. There isn't a single thing that somebody else doesn't do better, though nobody does it better than Google as a package.

h.264 is now a universal standard and I am happy that the license agreement gives provision for free use for non-profit activities or whatever the exact phrasing. I use h.264 for every single thing that I encode, regardless of the application, and that is not going to change anytime soon.

This isn't going to be a difficult decision if Google persist in their ways...




RE: Pretty simple for me.
By The Raven on 1/12/2011 11:23:25 AM , Rating: 2
While I get your point, I'd ask you to reconsider that sticking with Google's camp even considering the advantages of h.264. In the name of real freedom anyway.

I mean I use Ubuntu at home and know that it has some drawbacks/annoyances. But I gladly deal with them because it is free (as in freedom). I would not stick around with something simply if it was free of charge. I would rather pay for something that is better. But it is the freedom that I value and that is why I continue to use FOSS. Plus things are only getting better in the FOSS world. Now we have a free codec!


Good news for developers!
By ZachDontScare on 1/12/2011 2:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
This is very, very good news for developers and device manufacturers. While h.264 can be used for free in a lot of cases, software developers and device makers who want to distribute their products with h.264 encoding functionality still need to pay license fees for it. And the license fees are not cheap . Thats one of the reasons why Mozilla doesnt include h.264 support in firefox. The expensive license fees are why the 'big companies' (MS, Apple) like h.264. It creates a barrier to entry for competition against them.

Theora and WebM are not burdened down with patents (regardless of the FUD Apple spreads). Anyone can use them for anything. Thats only going to lead to more innovation in video as it will become more accessable to smaller and independent developers/manufactures.

Whatever their motivation (be it altruisim, or a strategic business decision), good going Google!




RE: Good news for developers!
By PhatoseAlpha on 1/13/2011 10:02:47 AM , Rating: 2
It's not just a money issue. Any software released under the GNU can't incorporate h.264 due to the legal issues created by the 'free' licensing restrictions.


reporter dude
By p05esto on 1/13/2011 12:08:17 AM , Rating: 2
Hey Mr. Reporter guy, you might look into the fact that Google bought the On2 company a year ago, it was one of their first publically owned company accusitions if memory serves correct. Sooooo, you might say Google has a financial interest in the VP8 codec, lol.




The cupped hand flexes
By Tony Swash on 1/12/11, Rating: -1
RE: The cupped hand flexes
By ElementZero on 1/12/2011 9:31:57 AM , Rating: 5
jeez - conspiracy theorist much?


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By Tony Swash on 1/12/2011 10:28:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
jeez - conspiracy theorist much?


Not all conspiracy theories are false :)

Tell me - how much of your life does Google own/control/watch?

What happens when Google's interests and yours diverge?


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By JasonMick (blog) on 1/12/2011 10:49:43 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Not all conspiracy theories are false :)

Tell me - how much of your life does Google own/control/watch?

What happens when Google's interests and yours diverge?


Tony, overlooking your homoerotic fantasy about Google, you do raise a good point about its possible motives in promoting WebM/the open VP8 codec.

However, did it ever occur to you that Apple also has its hand "tightly around your balls" as you would put it?

C'mon, you love Apple products, are you totally clueless of Apple's iOS data mining efforts or the iAd platform? They're beating down the exact same path as Google in that regard.

The only difference is that Google is supporting an open standard, open source, patent-free product here, where as Apple is supporting a proprietary codec that its CEO stands to profit off of.

Don't confuse the issue by raising interesting, but irrelevant points and pretending they justify Apple's approach.


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By The Raven on 1/12/2011 11:09:06 AM , Rating: 5
Well said. And if you knwo anything about the open philosophy it would be that WE ALL benefit from the openness. So yes, that includes Google. Who is your technological Mother Teresa, Tony? Steve Jobs?
I'm sure you are familiar with this nonsense.

http://www.apple.com/opensource/

If Apple really believed what it says here, then they wouldn't act in such a proprietary fashion and they would be all over WebM.

And by the way, if I wanted to rid my life of Google I could do it very easily. And I wouldn't have to pay a cent to do it. Rid yourself of Apple/MS? Umm that would take a while. And could be quite costly depending on your needs. Which is why many people don't.


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By nafhan on 1/12/2011 5:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
To add to this...
The only thing a company can really do to OSS once it's out in the wild is make it better. Any attempt to lock it down will just cause the project to fork and negative changes will then be ignored.
If Apple et al decide to lock down h.264 in 2016, a lot of people could be in trouble or at least severely inconvenienced. Google, on the other hand, really can't lock down WebM even at this point.


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By a1trips on 1/13/2011 9:52:37 AM , Rating: 2
well said, again.
While i suffer no delusions regarding data mining practices of Google, Apple needs to be shot .. yesterday.
i would have silently rated up, but that option wasn't available, so kudos


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By tastyratz on 1/12/2011 10:50:33 AM , Rating: 4
What happens? Firefox happens.

Just sucks that 264 support isn't built in because it IS the best and it IS the most widely adopted for overall video content (not just web)

Why not just make chrome support only motion jpeg's or mpeg2 while we are at it?

Html5 is a standard and it's here. Get over it Google, support it, and push your choices independent of supporting standards.
Whats next? png?


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By nafhan on 1/12/2011 1:10:21 PM , Rating: 2
I think h.264 is essentially built in to FF as long as you are using it on a system with h.264 codecs installed (i.e. Win 7 or OSX), as there is no need to install a codec pack or make changes to the software installation in any way. The video tag in HTML5 isn't codec specific. Of course, transparency to the end user isn't really the same as being built in, but to most users it should amount to the same thing. Also worth noting, I think the above may only apply to future versions of FF (v.4 and up).
It'll be interesting to see if Chrome without h.264 "built in" will still play back h.264 encoded video on platforms that already have the codec. I'm guessing that it will.


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By Alexstarfire on 1/13/2011 2:40:15 AM , Rating: 2
HTML5 is hardly a standard yet. H264 might be the best, I really don't know, but in all honesty I don't really care what is the absolute best for steaming through a browser. As long as it's not as bad as flash for playing video, and strictly for playing video mind you, then it's fine. HTML just needs a standard for playing video and audio, period.


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By ElderTech on 1/12/2011 6:29:11 PM , Rating: 2
RE: "Not all conspiracy theories are false :)

Tell me - how much of your life does Google own/control/watch?

What happens when Google's interests and yours diverge?"

NONE! Well, to be honest, I do use their website as my primary search vehicle. But no Gmail, nor any other personal information connected to them.

Frankly, I've always been a fan of AOL, believe it or not, and was one of the original subscribers, back when we had to pay for it. And I'm still with them for email, though it's not my only email provider. The fact that they generate random IP addresses for each connection when using their proprietary software makes protecting my personal info much easier. And I've never had a problem with any loss of personal data, nor marketing intrusion from my association with them all these years. Can't even say that about my association with financial institutions, where some of my personal data was compromised by one of the top 5 US banks.

All in all, for me it's not how restrictive the platform or system is, but how well they protect my privacy and personal information, and still provide the resources I need or want. That's a major problem for me with any cloud based system, and google is no exception.


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By nafhan on 1/12/2011 10:09:55 AM , Rating: 2
What a beautiful analogy.


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By bug77 on 1/12/2011 10:37:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How could we let someone get such a firm grasp on our balls?


I'm with you. Boooo, free codecs!!!


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By torpor on 1/12/2011 10:37:23 AM , Rating: 5
Its amusing to watch.

Apple, a company utterly committed to protecting it's one significant source of income, which is the iTunes lynchpin, has convinced many, many naive people that it is somehow a great big cuddly uncle giving out lots of amazing goodies.

I like Apple's stuff, I use anything Steve Jobs caresses on stage. Who wouldn't?

Meanwhile slowly but surely the hand gently holding and caressing our balls tightens it's grip with the power of a FUD campaign. Occasionally, as with this episode with H264 support, that hand flexes and we feel instinctively our vulnerability and the power the hand holding our balls has.

But the goodies are so nice and Apple knows how to talk the talk and make us all feel loved and protected in Apple's "insanely great" grasp.

One day that hand will tighten and as we gasp in pain and remember how much we thought Apple thought different and how Apple was so committed to our "freedoms" we will feel a deep sense of shame and embarrassment.

How could we believe such crap?

How could we let someone get such a firm grasp on our balls?

You tell me.


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By Tony Swash on 1/12/11, Rating: -1
RE: The cupped hand flexes
By torpor on 1/12/2011 12:44:45 PM , Rating: 5
Initially, I was mostly just making fun of your post. Despite the dissembling charge, I'll just say, "let me be clear".

Google has chosen not to support H.264 decoding natively in their browser.

So what? Well, H.264 is the primary codec being used to support HTML5 enhancements, the primary enhancement people are talking about being "native" web video.

Steve Jobs' stance on internet video is well known - dump the current overwhelmingly used standard, Adobe Flash, in favor of H.264-backed HTML5.

So this is really an extension of the HTML5/Flash wars largely initiated by Jobs himself.

The fact that he's heavily invested in the company which holds the patent on H.264 is no concidence.

I expect this is going to fall out like .mp3 fell out - Frauenhofer Institute was only too happy to just let people use .mp3 freely....until it became the common standard, at which time lawsuits and licensing dollars flew. The .mp3 standard has become hugely profitable for Frauenhofer due to their timing of patent use, despite innovations like LAME.

It's Apple that has you by the balls, not Google.

And you're too busy moaning to even see it.


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By boobo on 1/12/2011 2:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
The good thing about a "free and open grasp" is that, even if Google removes a codec from the browser, it would take all of 20 minutes to add it back in, since we have access to the browser's source.


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By sprockkets on 1/12/2011 3:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
You know that webm is now in the open domain, and has an irrevocable license on all its patents.

So no, Google can't grasp you or anyone else by the balls if webm succeeds.


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By bigboxes on 1/13/2011 1:55:22 AM , Rating: 2
Reader1, your knee-jerk reaction to anything concerning Apple is nauseating. It gets old. Very.


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By reader1 on 1/13/2011 3:18:59 PM , Rating: 1
*pokes head up*

who what I posted something?

(wait while I get into character)

*cough* *clears throat*

Google is a bunch of freetards. Apple and their superior codec will win the internets and will sue them with their patents. webm is trash and is only good for google's vertical markets.


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By The Raven on 1/14/2011 5:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well played bro, but the bad news is that your name was used to insult Tony... I think. Anyway, I'm not sure how I would feel if I were you. Like water off a duck's back, R1...duck's back.


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By Suntan on 1/13/2011 10:43:13 AM , Rating: 2
I’m being completely honest here… Google has done less to disturb my sense of well being than reading this post and getting to the part where he (graphically) started to describe ball cupping.

-Suntan


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By Tony Swash on 1/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: The cupped hand flexes
By sprockkets on 1/13/2011 11:56:33 AM , Rating: 2
The author made several mistakes and flaws in his article - the almost 300 responses say as much.


RE: The cupped hand flexes
By The Raven on 1/14/2011 5:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, that writer makes a lot of great points.... about not believing everything you read on the internet!

The big thing that kept glaring in my eye was that his advocacy for one codec (free or bond) is somehow construed to be a form of freedom. I mean that is like saying, Apple is holding back the tech community because they are stealing $$$ from MS who have the best chance at making the perfect OS. And how will we distribute apps for all those OSs? Oh me, oh my!

But alas, this is an argument that FOSS advocates are all too familiar with. To fork, or not to fork...that is the questions ;-)


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki