From: Karl E. Peterson on
Schmidt wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <karl(a)> schrieb...
>>> An information about the behaviour on Win7-64
>>> would be great (don't have such an install here yet).
>> I just extracted and ran it. All the initial demos appeared to do
>> what they said they would. The acid test scored 93/100.
>> I started hitting a few other websites, and it seemed to function
>> perfectly!
> Ah - well, thanks for confirmation (regarding Win7-64, right?).


>> Even watching youtubes. :-)
> Yep, just a note about that - the needed Flash-Plugin
> is independent (not included) in any Firefox/XulRunner-
> "binary-set". Adobe provides an Installer, which puts
> the FlashPlugin (in non-ActiveX-"mozilla-nsPlugin-format")
> into "some place in the Win-OS" where any non-MS-
> Browsers (Firefox + GoogleChrome + WebKit + Opera)
> are able to find it, when they look for this stuff.
> So, should there be a requirement, which relies on
> "Streaming-Video-Support over Flash", then this
> is not covered/included in the current 8MB-redistributable
> in my "xulrunner-zip". Flash needs to be "there" on
> the target-system (or installed on request).

Well, that makes sense, sure.

> But by looking at the sources - what *is* built-in
> in the 8MB-set, is support for the new HTML5
> <Video> tag.

Isn't YouTube moving over to that?

..NET: It's About Trust!

From: Schmidt on

"Karl E. Peterson" <karl(a)> schrieb im Newsbeitrag

[HTML5 <video> tag]
> Isn't YouTube moving over to that?
Yes - but sadly this tag also allows other codecs than
the "free ones" (in this context - "free" meaning more:
"free of patents") - Youtube/Google seems to prefer
H.264 (= patent-covered) more than Ogg-Theora
as the "working default-engine" behind the video-tag.

That means, that the Browser-Providers will have to
buy licenses, to be able to make legal use of H.264
codecs directly in their deployed "default-binaries".
And as it seems, Google does see a welcome
occassion in that, to promote their Google/Chrome-
BrowserEngine more - no problems for "rich Google",
to buy these licenses - as well as for Apple (with their
Safari-Browser), not to mention MS.

Larger problems for smaller Browser-Providers as e.g.
the Mozilla-Foundation or Opera, since their "money-
background" is not that "powerful", to include these
licenses in a "royalty-free-fashion" - as e.g. in our case -
into the xulrunner-"runtime-environment", which is
downloadable by any developer currently (for any purposes).

YouTube (or streaming video-content generally) *is*
definitely a killer application already today- and this topic
is just another "front", where strategic decisions about the
upcoming "standards" can become very important in the
long run (for the "dominance" of the big players of course -
as always).


From: Eduardo on
Tom Shelton escribi�:

> I completely don't understand that. Chrome, while it is fast - I personally
> don't like it. And if there is one company on this planet that I would trust
> less the MS - it's Google. I agree with Steve Job's on Google's "don't be
> evil"... "It's Bullshxt".

I agree both.
From: Eduardo on
Karl E. Peterson escribi�:

>> And if there is one company on this planet that I would trust
>> less the MS - it's Google. I agree with Steve Job's on Google's
>> "don't be
>> evil"... "It's Bullshxt".
> Not me. I'd far rather Google inherit the Earth, than either Jobs or
> Ballmer, myself. They "get" it. <shrug>

Google is not better than MS.
And MS is clearly declining already (I think), but not Google (so far).

At this time Google is more dangerous than MS.
They want to take for them all possible business on the net. They want
to be the only one for anything.

And do you think they care about you?
From: David Kaye on
Eduardo <mm(a)> wrote:

>I agree both.

I trust Microsoft; I do not trust Google.