Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Adobe Rants Over Linux Video Acceleration APIs

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Adobe Rants Over Linux Video Acceleration APIs

    Phoronix: Adobe Rants Over Linux Video Acceleration APIs

    Back in 2007, Adobe's Mike Melanson, who is responsible for much of the Linux work on the Adobe Flash Player, had blogged about the jungle of audio output methods. Linux audio has been a mess with so many choices and each project like PulseAudio having its advantages and disadvantages...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NzkyOA

  • #2
    Does this guy do anything but whine?

    When it comes to anything to do with linux adobe has proven itself to be nothing but a inept bunch of crybabies who rather blog then actually do any developing. A year after Flash 64 came out and they still can't get it to run full screen without major performance issues never mind with the use of Linux Video Acceleration API's. For a guy that has been "been programming multimedia-type stuff on Linux since 1999", he sure has sweet **** all to show for it.

    Comment


    • #3
      The truth is...

      The truth is sucks flash on any platform. It sucks on the latest and greatest hardware runnin' WinXP. It sucks on mobiles. It sucks on Macs. And it sucks even harder on Linux.

      It is buggy, unsafe, processor intensive, annoying as hell...

      The sooner sites start using html5 video tags the better.

      The web is a frightening place without FlashBlock.

      Comment


      • #4
        Pfff he must approve posts in his blog... I wonder why...
        Last edited by Apopas; 01-26-2010, 09:21 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Apopas View Post
          Pfff he has to approve posts in his blog... I wonder why...
          I think he is the stapler guy in Office Space. Probably got fired years ago but refuses to leave his booth so he keeps on blogging instead of writing any useful code.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by talvik View Post
            The sooner sites start using html5 video tags the better.
            Ya like that situation is any better with Google/Apple backing H264/AAC and FF/Opera backing vorbis and theora. And then we can all start asking for vdpau / va-api / XvBA support in the browsers......

            Comment


            • #7
              So wait, this is the company that for Flash has not been able to produce a stable 64bit release (That one version for Linux was just officially just some alpha testing version). Further their 32bit version aren't known to be anything close to a decent piece of software. Neither on Windows nor OS X nor Linux.

              Not really the starting point to go and rant about others shortcomings. But well lets give them the benefit of the doubt. So what does he complain about? There are too many video acceleration apis on Linux. So going out on a limb here what he means, is that this "mess" makes it hard to implement hardware accelerated flash video playback. Well newsflash, Windows has exactly the same "problem" that the two major gpu vendors have different acceleration apis. Yet they still managed to ship out a version that at least supports one of the two. Strange how that is possible there but not on Linux. So the "too many apis" (actually really only 2 that currently exist in reality) doesn't sound so convincing.

              I'n sorry that it sounds so much like a rant, but it just gets boring after a while to always read these impled "we really totally would implement all the cool features but because of other people we cant" posts. The most prominent rants and complaints about both the state of audio (and then subsequently PulseAudio) and video I have seen from developers have been from Skype and Flash. Both programms that are reknown for the horrible information policy, the lagging-behing compared to Windows software, their once-over-a-blue-moon release cycle (since a some years mostly only true for Flash) and their release that often contain few or none of the most demanded features or fixes. Yet they seem (making I am gravly mistaken?) to always be the ones screeming the loudest about how they can't do things because some area is a mess.

              If they would at least offer some sort of a solution or use the complaint as the basis to start some sort of initiative with the aim to rectify what is wrong in their eyes, I would have no problems. But I really don't understand the point or the added value of such posts.

              So bottomline is I have no idea why other big(ger) projects like for example mplayer has no problem supporting hardware accelerated video for those cards for which it is available, yet for a big multi-billion company the seems to be an endless black-hole of complexity.


              Yay, long text is long.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                Ya like that situation is any better with Google/Apple backing H264/AAC and FF/Opera backing vorbis and theora. And then we can all start asking for vdpau / va-api / XvBA support in the browsers......
                we have a good chance of getting vdpau/va/xvba support in open source browsers. Problem is, h264 isn't coming to firefox and theora doesn't rape the cpu so bad.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                  we have a good chance of getting vdpau/va/xvba support in open source browsers. Problem is, h264 isn't coming to firefox and theora doesn't rape the cpu so bad.
                  Are you kidding? They are having enough of a hard time squabbling over gstreamer vs ffmpeg.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                    Are you kidding? They are having enough of a hard time squabbling over gstreamer vs ffmpeg.
                    and that argument will be finished eventually. however im still waiting on 64 bit flash. Lets see what comes first .

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      So instead of actually doing work and improving Flash on Linux, this guy sits at his desk and bitches about Linux video APIs on this blog? What I want to know is, why hasn't somebody stepped up to the plate with a real alternative to Flash and finished it off by now? HTML5 is great, I tried the YouTube beta and it uses nowhere near as much CPU as Flash does. The only problem with HTML5 is the h264/Ogg battle. Hey I'm all for open-source but sometimes I just want to watch videos and not be scrutinized for using a non-free codec.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        xvideo

                        Why don't they start with implementing something like xvideo? That would help the cpu tremendously. I don't understand why flash has to avoid using overlays and take more cpu for decoding than any other compiled video decoder.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I think Adobe lost all credibility by having this guy rant for them about video acceleration.

                          ATI's video acceleration API is undocumented and unimplemented, so you can't target it.
                          XVideo and XV-MC don't help the CPU much and probably aren't worth the effort.
                          VDPAU is rapidly becoming the standard video acceleration API on Linux, being supported by Nvidia GPUs and some minor players, supported as a backend for Broadcom's CrystalHD chip, and probably eventually being supported by Intel GPUs

                          Hmmm..... I wonder which one they should choose?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Look at all the work Mozilla has done to improve the GNU/Linux platform API's - from Pango to Cairo. At this rate, Mozilla will fix Video before Adobe finishes whining about it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 3rdalbum View Post
                              ATI's video acceleration API is undocumented and unimplemented, so you can't target it.
                              XvBA is documented, just under NDA. It was originally designed for use with binary players.

                              Originally posted by 3rdalbum View Post
                              XVideo and XV-MC don't help the CPU much and probably aren't worth the effort.
                              They actually save a lot of CPU time, probably more than any other level step in the playback stack. Try playing a typical video with X11 output rather than Xv and look at the CPU difference. That said, Adobe is already using GL for render acceleration so Xv wouldn't save much CPU relative to GL. If that's what you meant then "carry on"
                              Last edited by bridgman; 01-27-2010, 12:53 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X