Mike Shaver

Well, I still call bullshit. Especially if this is the best you can come up with. Let's see:

http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codecs/

We have exactly two references to "security" :

And I want that not only altruistically, but also because I want the crazy awesome video (animation, peer-to-peer, *security*, etc.) ideas that will come from having more people, with more perspectives, fully participating in the internet.

and

(about 60% of our users are on Windows XP, which provides no H.264 codec), *to security* (exposure of arbitrary codecs to hostile content), and to user experience

None of them even slightly imply that the Mozilla team thinks H.264 is insecure.

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html

This is an FAQ or rant if you will, which goes on and on about why Mozilla does not want to implement H.264. Oh yes, not one single word about security

This one:

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directshow_and.html

indeed discusses security. It is however not geared towards H.264, but towards Microsoft's DirectShow. Using this article as a reference regarding Mozilla's stand on security on H.264 is at best a stretch and at worst intellectually dishonest.

I'm calling "do your homework, lest you look like a badly-informed fanboy".

I never thought of myself as a fanboy, but be my guest to dive into ad-hominem, when you're out of arguments.

In addition. I'm rather an uninformed fanboy then…

The article glosses over the fact that fsync() itself has major issues. For example, on ext3, if you call fsync() on a single file, all file system cached data is written to disk, leading to an extreme slowdown. This led to a Firefox bug, when the sqlite db used for the awesome bar and for bookmarks called fsync() and slowed everything down.

http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/05/25/fsyncers-and-curveballs/

OS X does a fake fsync() if you call it with the defaults.
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/CoreData/Articles/cdPersistentStores.html

fsync in Mac OS X: Since in Mac OS X the fsync command does not make the guarantee that bytes are written, SQLite sends a F_FULLFSYNC request to the kernel to ensures that the bytes are actually written through to the drive platter. This causes the kernel to flush all buffers to the drives and causes the drives to flush their track caches. Without this, there is a significantly large window of time within which data will reside in volatile memory—and in the event of system failure you risk data corruption

Sigh! When did the Mozilla ever claim that they do not ship H.264 because it's insecure?

Mike Shaver and Robert O'Callahan both -- during the early attempt to frantically spin this as more than just an ideological PR stunt -- pointed to security as a reason why they didn't feel comfortable delegating to other software. See the following posts:

http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codecs/

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directshow_and.html

Of course, they did eventually come clean and admit this was just a naked ideological PR stunt. O'Callahan's quote about the fact that delegating to OS codecs would mean giving up Mozilla's control -- sorry, "leverage" -- over what users can do with their own computers is particularly telling, especially in a debate that's ostensibly about "freedom".

I'm calling bullshit, badly disguised as a strawman.

I'm calling "do your homework, lest you look like a badly-informed fanboy".

"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-codecs/

I generally like Gruber and think he tends to weigh his thoughts and arguments very well - but I still can't forgive him for buying MPEG LA's PR release[1] hook and sink[2]. Since when has it been a good idea to take a press release at face value[3]?

He hasn't recanted this complete acquiescence, so I am under the impression that he sincerely believes them - and only on the grounds of that single release.

Maybe he was biased, too cute for his own good, had a brain fart, or is too stubborn to accede. I really don't know, but this is one case where I can't really blame Gruber haters for framing his writing and philosophy in a certain way.

[1]: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en

[2]: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/08/26/h264

[3]: http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/08/27/free-as-in-smokescreen/

(Fixed a typo: "thought" to "thoughts". Don't read anything into it!)

You don't remember what the original argumentation was. Firefox is free, Mozilla can't afford the patent licensing, that's all.

This is still entirely true (note that "afford" in the above should be read in the "free license" context, not monetary). For the same reason, Chromium has no H264 support. Patented codecs don't mix well with free software. They took a stance here based on their philosophy, that much should have been obvious.

The reasons not to do it with system codecs before are enumerated here:
http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codecs/

Most of them still apply, but are simply less important 2 years later. The Windows XP thing was even brought up in the original discussion thread.

put the user back in the stone age of the internet

I would say that's essentially what the current patent legislation is doing. Worth fighting against.