Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 147

Thread: Adobe Rants Over Linux Video Acceleration APIs

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    18

    Default

    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.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    88

    Default 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.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    26

    Default

    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?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    127

    Default

    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.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,570

    Default

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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 at 01:53 AM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bash View Post
    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).
    I've been running 64-bit Flash for a year and it's no worse than any other version of Flash. Ubuntu even handles it through the update manager so there's no need to manually download new versions anymore.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    11

    Default

    I don't want anymore the flash plugin(and other closed source code) into my linux box.
    But from the Adobe perspective: why Flash Plugin is not expandable by plugins?
    If Adobe release an intelligent FlashAPI the opensource community can create the code needed to the plugin for work well on linux, solaris, *bsd, macosx, ecc..
    For example the Api can permit to create Video Acceleration Api backends, graphic output backends, audio output backends, in a more deep collaboration with the community is possible to create an efficient 2D acceleration.
    Adobe open the doors. Release the FlashPlugin like a kernel and let's the community a free api for create the "drivers".

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    543

    Default

    Maybe this guy needs to spend LESS time on m$ paint, and more time, you know, CODING.

    It's easy to arrive later at the party and say "meh, I don't like these APIs, they don't work". Why don't they work? How can they be improved? Where are you getting problems? -- Those are the lame, technical questions. Bitching and drawing a box graphic attacks the real issue, that is: er.., if I knew I'd be working for adobe.

    So there you go.
    Last edited by [Knuckles]; 01-27-2010 at 04:28 AM. Reason: typo

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by L33F3R View Post
    and that argument will be finished eventually. however im still waiting on 64 bit flash. Lets see what comes first .
    Huh?
    http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flas...r10_64bit.html

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    12

    Angry

    I agree with the points made here.

    Adobe should work with the various communities and help them instead of complaining. You didn't see Mozilla complain that pango or cairo were no good. No, you have them working to improve the associated libraries to meet their needs.

    So, stepping back a little, what is the reason behind this?
    1/ Adobe being closed source does not want to contribute code to Open Source projects?
    2/ Adobe does not know where to talk about this in the respective communities (sound, pulseaudio, video)?
    3/ The developers are lazy?
    4/ They feel that their work will become yet another sound API or video acceleration API, or not get accepted upstream?
    5/ Pressure from management/the business to get a product out that supports the features, and not wanting to wait to get community approval, get the changes into the upstream projects and have them being adopted by the various distributions?
    6/ Adobe does not want to help Open Source projects because of their ties to Microsoft?
    6/ A combination of the above?

    If we don't know, then it just becomes another meaningless rant which will blow over, nothing will be done about it and will help colour peoples perception of Linux.

    And it's not like Microsoft change their graphics APIs (GDI, GDI+, DirectDraw, Direct2D, System.Drawing, System.Windows.Shapes, ...) or sound APIs and architecture (Vista) creating a confusing landscape on Windows is it? Yet Abobe does not rant about that, do they?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •