Hi all,
Currently, we don't install any free flash implementations by default, but now that swfdec-gnome has become part of GNOME(1), I would like to propose that we install swfdec-gnome (& possibly swfdec-mozilla) by default starting with F9.
(1) http://mail.gnome.org/archives/devel-announce-list/2008-January/msg00001.htm...
Thanks, /B
Hi,
Currently, we don't install any free flash implementations by default, but now that swfdec-gnome has become part of GNOME(1), I would like to propose that we install swfdec-gnome (& possibly swfdec-mozilla) by default starting with F9.
seems like a no brainer. We try to ship as close to upstream as we can, and it finally made it upstream.
--Ray
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 11:45 -0500, Brian Pepple wrote:
Hi all,
Currently, we don't install any free flash implementations by default, but now that swfdec-gnome has become part of GNOME(1), I would like to propose that we install swfdec-gnome (& possibly swfdec-mozilla) by default starting with F9.
(1) http://mail.gnome.org/archives/devel-announce-list/2008-January/msg00001.htm...
swfdec-gnome sounds vastly less important/interesting than swfdec-mozilla.
If it works well enough, I don't see any problem with installing it by default. The last time I tried swfdec (shortly after it moved over from livna), sound didn't really work at all for me.
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 12:12 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
swfdec-gnome sounds vastly less important/interesting than swfdec-mozilla.
If it works well enough, I don't see any problem with installing it by default. The last time I tried swfdec (shortly after it moved over from livna), sound didn't really work at all for me.
That was probably before I enabled the pulse audio support in Rawhide.
Later, /B
Matthias Clasen wrote:
If it works well enough, I don't see any problem with installing it by default. The last time I tried swfdec (shortly after it moved over from livna), sound didn't really work at all for me.
That was fixed in the most recent update. You should try again.
Rahul
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 22:53 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Matthias Clasen wrote:
If it works well enough, I don't see any problem with installing it by default. The last time I tried swfdec (shortly after it moved over from livna), sound didn't really work at all for me.
That was fixed in the most recent update. You should try again.
I will.
On Jan 11, 2008 6:12 PM, Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 11:45 -0500, Brian Pepple wrote:
Hi all,
Currently, we don't install any free flash implementations by default, but now that swfdec-gnome has become part of GNOME(1), I would like to propose that we install swfdec-gnome (& possibly swfdec-mozilla) by default starting with F9.
(1) http://mail.gnome.org/archives/devel-announce-list/2008-January/msg00001.htm...
swfdec-gnome sounds vastly less important/interesting than swfdec-mozilla.
If it works well enough, I don't see any problem with installing it by default. The last time I tried swfdec (shortly after it moved over from livna), sound didn't really work at all for me.
If we ship Fedora 9 with swfdec plugin for Firefox then Firefox will see that it has the plugin but it still won't play fedoratv.com or youtube.com videos since Fedora can't ship gstreamer-ffmped needed for playback if I understand it correctly, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Valent.
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 11:45 -0500, Brian Pepple wrote:
Hi all,
Currently, we don't install any free flash implementations by default, but now that swfdec-gnome has become part of GNOME(1), I would like to propose that we install swfdec-gnome (& possibly swfdec-mozilla) by default starting with F9.
People will go to YouTube, DailyMotion and plenty of other places, and it won't work because the plugin needs to implement GStreamer's missing plugins. Then missing plugins will be automatically installed (hopefully).
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 22:38 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 11:45 -0500, Brian Pepple wrote:
Currently, we don't install any free flash implementations by default, but now that swfdec-gnome has become part of GNOME(1), I would like to propose that we install swfdec-gnome (& possibly swfdec-mozilla) by default starting with F9.
People will go to YouTube, DailyMotion and plenty of other places, and it won't work because the plugin needs to implement GStreamer's missing plugins. Then missing plugins will be automatically installed (hopefully).
Yeah, Codeina support (much like totem or rhythmbox has) would need to be added.
Later, /B
2008/1/12 Brian Pepple bpepple@fedoraproject.org:
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 22:38 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 11:45 -0500, Brian Pepple wrote:
Currently, we don't install any free flash implementations by default, but now that swfdec-gnome has become part of GNOME(1), I would like to propose that we install swfdec-gnome (& possibly swfdec-mozilla) by default starting with F9.
People will go to YouTube, DailyMotion and plenty of other places, and it won't work because the plugin needs to implement GStreamer's missing plugins. Then missing plugins will be automatically installed (hopefully).
Yeah, Codeina support (much like totem or rhythmbox has) would need to be added.
Later,
Is this legal? I asked not long ago and it was still illegal for Fedora to even link to codecs. Has this changed and I haven't noticed, I really hope so! Fedora needs to be able to atleast link to outside sources for codecs... afcourse if it is legal to do so.
Valent.
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 00:09 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:
2008/1/12 Brian Pepple bpepple@fedoraproject.org:
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 22:38 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 11:45 -0500, Brian Pepple wrote:
Currently, we don't install any free flash implementations by default, but now that swfdec-gnome has become part of GNOME(1), I would like to propose that we install swfdec-gnome (& possibly swfdec-mozilla) by default starting with F9.
People will go to YouTube, DailyMotion and plenty of other places, and it won't work because the plugin needs to implement GStreamer's missing plugins. Then missing plugins will be automatically installed (hopefully).
Yeah, Codeina support (much like totem or rhythmbox has) would need to be added.
Later,
Is this legal? I asked not long ago and it was still illegal for Fedora to even link to codecs. Has this changed and I haven't noticed, I really hope so! Fedora needs to be able to atleast link to outside sources for codecs... afcourse if it is legal to do so.
Last time I looked, codeina linked to the proprietary codecs from Fluendo which have the appropriate licenses.
Nils
On Jan 29, 2008 2:01 PM, Nils Philippsen nphilipp@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 00:09 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:
2008/1/12 Brian Pepple bpepple@fedoraproject.org:
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 22:38 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 11:45 -0500, Brian Pepple wrote:
Currently, we don't install any free flash implementations by default, but now that swfdec-gnome has become part of GNOME(1), I would like to propose that we install swfdec-gnome (& possibly swfdec-mozilla) by default starting with F9.
People will go to YouTube, DailyMotion and plenty of other places, and it won't work because the plugin needs to implement GStreamer's missing plugins. Then missing plugins will be automatically installed (hopefully).
Yeah, Codeina support (much like totem or rhythmbox has) would need to be added.
Later,
Is this legal? I asked not long ago and it was still illegal for Fedora to even link to codecs. Has this changed and I haven't noticed, I really hope so! Fedora needs to be able to atleast link to outside sources for codecs... afcourse if it is legal to do so.
Last time I looked, codeina linked to the proprietary codecs from Fluendo which have the appropriate licenses.
Nils
Sorry, my missunderstanding. I thought that gstreamer-ffmpeg can't be included in fedora as that is what swfdec uses now... but why is then in livna and not in fedora repos?
Valent.
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 14:47 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:
Sorry, my missunderstanding. I thought that gstreamer-ffmpeg can't be included in fedora as that is what swfdec uses now... but why is then in livna and not in fedora repos?
Valent.
AFAIK gstreamer-ffmpeg is not 100% legal in some countries (e.g. USA), while the codecs obtained from fluendo via codeina are legal everywhere.
Martin
2008/1/29 Martin Sourada martin.sourada@gmail.com:
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 14:47 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:
Sorry, my missunderstanding. I thought that gstreamer-ffmpeg can't be included in fedora as that is what swfdec uses now... but why is then in livna and not in fedora repos?
Valent.
AFAIK gstreamer-ffmpeg is not 100% legal in some countries (e.g. USA), while the codecs obtained from fluendo via codeina are legal everywhere.
I was told that I need to install gstreamer-ffmpeg in order to view flash video via swfdec, have I been miss informed? Or is there some option to use gstreamer-ffmpeg or just fluendo codecs without gstreamer-ffmpeg? Can somebody clarify that?
Cheers, Valent.
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 14:47 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:
Sorry, my missunderstanding. I thought that gstreamer-ffmpeg can't be included in fedora as that is what swfdec uses now... but why is then in livna and not in fedora repos?
No, you are right that ffmpeg is not suitable for Fedora, and gstreamer-ffmpeg is what is needed to make swfdec play flash videos.
Still, adding codeina support to swfdec would be useful for audio codecs.
On Jan 29, 2008 2:59 PM, Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 14:47 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:
Sorry, my missunderstanding. I thought that gstreamer-ffmpeg can't be included in fedora as that is what swfdec uses now... but why is then in livna and not in fedora repos?
No, you are right that ffmpeg is not suitable for Fedora, and gstreamer-ffmpeg is what is needed to make swfdec play flash videos.
Still, adding codeina support to swfdec would be useful for audio codecs.
That clarifies a bit. So in other words this would not play youtube. Firefox would not suggest installing proprietary codecs as it would see flash plugin installed (firefox doesn't check if it actually plays video) and it will be happy with that.
IMHO this will lead to lot of users calling firefox and/or fedora broken as legal restrictions posed on fedora will make this flash playback feature broken by design if users expect or want something more that just flash adds which work without codecs.
Valent.
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 15:08 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:
That clarifies a bit. So in other words this would not play youtube. Firefox would not suggest installing proprietary codecs as it would see flash plugin installed (firefox doesn't check if it actually plays video) and it will be happy with that.
IMHO this will lead to lot of users calling firefox and/or fedora broken as legal restrictions posed on fedora will make this flash playback feature broken by design if users expect or want something more that just flash adds which work without codecs.
While I agree that the situation wrt to flash video is a sad one, swfdec is not 'just for ads'. A lot of flash games work fine with it.
On Jan 29, 2008 3:12 PM, Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 15:08 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:
That clarifies a bit. So in other words this would not play youtube. Firefox would not suggest installing proprietary codecs as it would see flash plugin installed (firefox doesn't check if it actually plays video) and it will be happy with that.
IMHO this will lead to lot of users calling firefox and/or fedora broken as legal restrictions posed on fedora will make this flash playback feature broken by design if users expect or want something more that just flash adds which work without codecs.
While I agree that the situation wrt to flash video is a sad one, swfdec is not 'just for ads'. A lot of flash games work fine with it.
I haven't tested this so I can't confirm, but what games have you tested? I don't play flash games so I'm not the one to ask how many games on average work or don't work with swfdec but I can look at it if you know of some popular flash gaming urls. I know that I can google it but I'm not sure if the ones google finds are the one that people actually use the most...
Valent Turkovic wrote:
I haven't tested this so I can't confirm, but what games have you tested? I don't play flash games so I'm not the one to ask how many games on average work or don't work with swfdec but I can look at it if you know of some popular flash gaming urls. I know that I can google it but I'm not sure if the ones google finds are the one that people actually use the most...
http://swfdec.freedesktop.org/wiki/ScreenShots
Rahul
On Jan 29, 2008 4:35 PM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Valent Turkovic wrote:
I haven't tested this so I can't confirm, but what games have you tested? I don't play flash games so I'm not the one to ask how many games on average work or don't work with swfdec but I can look at it if you know of some popular flash gaming urls. I know that I can google it but I'm not sure if the ones google finds are the one that people actually use the most...
http://swfdec.freedesktop.org/wiki/ScreenShots
Rahul
Thanks Rahul for the link, I saw if before and it is not the answer to my post if you read it carefully.
That is exactly why I asked the in the previous posts to test games that are actually popular and people use them, and not find some odd games that nobody plays and post screenshots of them working.
I'm not the authority on flash games because I don't play them and have no interest in them but still my point stays.
Valent.
On Jan 29, 2008 4:43 PM, Valent Turkovic valent.turkovic@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 4:35 PM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Valent Turkovic wrote:
I haven't tested this so I can't confirm, but what games have you tested? I don't play flash games so I'm not the one to ask how many games on average work or don't work with swfdec but I can look at it if you know of some popular flash gaming urls. I know that I can google it but I'm not sure if the ones google finds are the one that people actually use the most...
http://swfdec.freedesktop.org/wiki/ScreenShots
Rahul
Thanks Rahul for the link, I saw if before and it is not the answer to my post if you read it carefully.
That is exactly why I asked the in the previous posts to test games that are actually popular and people use them, and not find some odd games that nobody plays and post screenshots of them working.
I'm not the authority on flash games because I don't play them and have no interest in them but still my point stays.
Valent.
ps. I can of course be very wrong and that all games work with swfdec or 99% of games work, or the most important and most played games work with swfdec or that only those on screenshots work and not one more... that is what I wanted to say.
Valent.
Valent Turkovic wrote:
Thanks Rahul for the link, I saw if before and it is not the answer to my post if you read it carefully.
I did.
That is exactly why I asked the in the previous posts to test games that are actually popular and people use them, and not find some odd games that nobody plays and post screenshots of them working.
Some of these are popular. You wouldn't know if you don't play flash games.
Rahul
Ps: You should avoid replying to your own messages often.
On Jan 11, 2008 11:38 PM, Bastien Nocera bnocera@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 11:45 -0500, Brian Pepple wrote:
Hi all,
Currently, we don't install any free flash implementations by default, but now that swfdec-gnome has become part of GNOME(1), I would like to propose that we install swfdec-gnome (& possibly swfdec-mozilla) by default starting with F9.
People will go to YouTube, DailyMotion and plenty of other places, and it won't work because the plugin needs to implement GStreamer's missing plugins. Then missing plugins will be automatically installed (hopefully).
Even with installed plugins most sites don't work. Youtube works but that is it. You can read my report about swfdec in my previous posts for more details. fedoratv.com wasn't working yesterday with swfdec when I tried it :(
Valent.
Brian Pepple <bpepple <at> fedoraproject.org> writes:
I would like to propose that we [possibly] install ... swfdec-mozilla by default starting with F9.
As the maintainer of Swfdec, I'd like to add some comments about this option that should help you decide about this proposal.
The short version is that I would not recommend Swfdec for distro releases that do a long-term support release. Apart from that, I'd be very happy if distributions include Swfdec as long as they don't expect a perfect Flash player.
Swfdec has arrived at a stage where it can be useful to a lot of people. It plays most smaller Flash files and is often good enough for mid-sized Flash files, such as the players on the various video sites or Flash games. However it's also pretty bad on Flash-heavy websites and not very good at playing Flash 9.
However, there's also some reasons that speak against Swfdec. Swfdec has not had a lot of exposure yet. I have no clue about how many people use it, but shipping it by default on a distro such as Fedora would increase that a lot. And exposure can uncover lots of issues that upstream (we) didn't think about, such as finding lots of problematic crasher bugs or flooding our bugzilla. I've experienced this exposure issue once with GStreamer, so I feel pretty well prepared, but who knows.
Another issue coupled with the above is that the Swfdec plugin runs in-process in the browser. [1] This of course means that when Swfdec crashes, your browser is gone, too. However, we're still proud of the Swfdec's stability. But you have been warned. :) Another thing is that Swfdec has never been security audited. We've run it with tools like zzuf, we've got pretty evil tests in our testsuite, we copy an existing and proven system, but we're no security experts and Swfdec is 50k lines of code.
Swfdec is also in heavy development, I tend to call it "surprisingly usable alpha software". We change a lot of code quickly. (A year ago Swfdec didn't even play Youtube.) This also means that we currently don't want to support the current versions eternally. (Probably - like Gnome - we'll actively support it until the next stable version is released in 6 months.) This is my main reason for not suggesting it for long-term support releases.
So that being said, I'd be very happy to see you install Swfdec-Mozilla by default. I'm running it in my default browser since about a year and I didn't get annoyed at it.
Cheers, Benjamin
On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 15:10 +0000, Benjamin Otte wrote:
Brian Pepple <bpepple <at> fedoraproject.org> writes:
I would like to propose that we [possibly] install ... swfdec-mozilla by default starting with F9.
As the maintainer of Swfdec, I'd like to add some comments about this option that should help you decide about this proposal.
The short version is that I would not recommend Swfdec for distro releases that do a long-term support release. Apart from that, I'd be very happy if distributions include Swfdec as long as they don't expect a perfect Flash player.
Swfdec has arrived at a stage where it can be useful to a lot of people. It plays most smaller Flash files and is often good enough for mid-sized Flash files, such as the players on the various video sites or Flash games. However it's also pretty bad on Flash-heavy websites and not very good at playing Flash 9.
However, there's also some reasons that speak against Swfdec. Swfdec has not had a lot of exposure yet. I have no clue about how many people use it, but shipping it by default on a distro such as Fedora would increase that a lot. And exposure can uncover lots of issues that upstream (we) didn't think about, such as finding lots of problematic crasher bugs or flooding our bugzilla. I've experienced this exposure issue once with GStreamer, so I feel pretty well prepared, but who knows.
Another issue coupled with the above is that the Swfdec plugin runs in-process in the browser. [1] This of course means that when Swfdec crashes, your browser is gone, too. However, we're still proud of the Swfdec's stability. But you have been warned. :) Another thing is that Swfdec has never been security audited. We've run it with tools like zzuf, we've got pretty evil tests in our testsuite, we copy an existing and proven system, but we're no security experts and Swfdec is 50k lines of code.
Swfdec is also in heavy development, I tend to call it "surprisingly usable alpha software". We change a lot of code quickly. (A year ago Swfdec didn't even play Youtube.) This also means that we currently don't want to support the current versions eternally. (Probably - like Gnome - we'll actively support it until the next stable version is released in 6 months.) This is my main reason for not suggesting it for long-term support releases.
So that being said, I'd be very happy to see you install Swfdec-Mozilla by default. I'm running it in my default browser since about a year and I didn't get annoyed at it.
Thanks a lot for this perspective, Benjamin.
One thing we can do to get you some exposure is to put swfdec-mozilla in the default install for the beta. If the deluge of crasher bug reports turns out to be overwhelming, we'll remove it again for the final release.
On Jan 16, 2008 6:10 AM, Benjamin Otte otte@gnome.org wrote:
Another issue coupled with the above is that the Swfdec plugin runs in-process in the browser. [1]
Even if we use the nspluginwrapper package?
-jef
2008/1/11 Brian Pepple bpepple@fedoraproject.org:
Hi all,
Currently, we don't install any free flash implementations by default, but now that swfdec-gnome has become part of GNOME(1), I would like to propose that we install swfdec-gnome (& possibly swfdec-mozilla) by default starting with F9.
(1) http://mail.gnome.org/archives/devel-announce-list/2008-January/msg00001.htm...
Why not fix this bug[1]? My experience with swfdec is great! I really love that we have an option to watch online videos (there other things beside porn, believe it or not) and not use proprietary plugins for that. I have tested it and you can see my posts[2][3] that it works really porely on most sites. It works on youtube.com and that is about it. It doensn't even work with www.fedoratv.com :(
From users point of view this would be a mixed bag. If fedora makes
some how to include all the codecs needed for swfdec to work even then only youtube is not something that will make users who want things to JustWork happy. It would be bad to "force" users to use swfdec if it works porly and not give them some easy way to switch it to propritary one if they find this one not working for them. I see that as a problem because if firefox has something that says can play flash it is happy - it doens't care that it actually does nothing (like swfdec without codecs). Any ideas? And it would be really nice if the bug from the beginning gets fixed :)
Cheers, Valent.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242175 [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-desktop-list/2008-January/msg00095.ht... [3] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-desktop-list/2008-January/msg00106.ht...
On Jan 29, 2008 12:29 AM, Valent Turkovic valent.turkovic@gmail.com wrote:
2008/1/11 Brian Pepple bpepple@fedoraproject.org:
Hi all,
Currently, we don't install any free flash implementations by default, but now that swfdec-gnome has become part of GNOME(1), I would like to propose that we install swfdec-gnome (& possibly swfdec-mozilla) by default starting with F9.
(1) http://mail.gnome.org/archives/devel-announce-list/2008-January/msg00001.htm...
Why not fix this bug[1]? My experience with swfdec is great! I really love that we have an option to watch online videos (there other things beside porn, believe it or not) and not use proprietary plugins for that. I have tested it and you can see my posts[2][3] that it works really porely on most sites. It works on youtube.com and that is about it. It doensn't even work with www.fedoratv.com :(
From users point of view this would be a mixed bag. If fedora makes some how to include all the codecs needed for swfdec to work even then only youtube is not something that will make users who want things to JustWork happy. It would be bad to "force" users to use swfdec if it works porly and not give them some easy way to switch it to propritary one if they find this one not working for them. I see that as a problem because if firefox has something that says can play flash it is happy - it doens't care that it actually does nothing (like swfdec without codecs). Any ideas? And it would be really nice if the bug from the beginning gets fixed :)
Cheers, Valent.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242175 [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-desktop-list/2008-January/msg00095.ht... [3] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-desktop-list/2008-January/msg00106.ht...
Here is the bz for this issue; https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430629
On Jan 29, 2008 7:30 AM, Valent Turkovic valent.turkovic@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 12:29 AM, Valent Turkovic valent.turkovic@gmail.com wrote:
2008/1/11 Brian Pepple bpepple@fedoraproject.org:
Hi all,
Currently, we don't install any free flash implementations by default, but now that swfdec-gnome has become part of GNOME(1), I would like to propose that we install swfdec-gnome (& possibly swfdec-mozilla) by default starting with F9.
(1) http://mail.gnome.org/archives/devel-announce-list/2008-January/msg00001.htm...
Why not fix this bug[1]? My experience with swfdec is great! I really love that we have an option to watch online videos (there other things beside porn, believe it or not) and not use proprietary plugins for that. I have tested it and you can see my posts[2][3] that it works really porely on most sites. It works on youtube.com and that is about it. It doensn't even work with www.fedoratv.com :(
From users point of view this would be a mixed bag. If fedora makes some how to include all the codecs needed for swfdec to work even then only youtube is not something that will make users who want things to JustWork happy. It would be bad to "force" users to use swfdec if it works porly and not give them some easy way to switch it to propritary one if they find this one not working for them. I see that as a problem because if firefox has something that says can play flash it is happy - it doens't care that it actually does nothing (like swfdec without codecs). Any ideas? And it would be really nice if the bug from the beginning gets fixed :)
Cheers, Valent.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242175 [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-desktop-list/2008-January/msg00095.ht... [3] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-desktop-list/2008-January/msg00106.ht...
Here is the bz for this issue; https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430629
I have just tested the Firefox 3 in rawhide and I see the same behavior as with Firefox 2 so I'm reopening this bug[1].
Can somebody please look at it?
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=236881
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org