Re: [rtcweb] The MTI Codec Questions (what to ask and how to ask them)

What we need is a free, standardized and open video codec, rather than a
universal "binary wrapper".
On 6 Nov 2014 21:08, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

> First a question and then a rant :)
>
> Question: What are you proposing to replace with a GStreamer plugin?
> Rant: 2 years ago I tried to get Gstreamer working on iOS. Let's just say
> it felt like taking a drill to the head. The codebase depended on many
> Linux-specific dependencies (which did not exist on BSD) and some of them
> were very poorly maintained (committers who were unreachable or dead .. no
> joke .. for years). Once I got past that point, it used to break randomly
> in mysterious ways (i.e. the API's error handling sucks, once you report a
> bug it sits unfixed for months)
>
> I know that GStreamer is very popular and that GStreamer SDK has since
> been published for iOS and OSX, but I still don't trust that codebase. I
> wouldn't want to have to maintain a project on top of it.
>
> Gili
>
> On 06/11/2014 2:11 PM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
>
>> We are also working with Red Hat on a potential Gstreamer plugin.
>> We would be happy to work with Debian or anyone else on other wrappers
>> for projects that want to download some wrapper format beyond the raw
>> library.
>>
>> It would be ideal to have a single binary (per platform) that works for
>> all applications, without many different wrappers. That was the goal of
>> the raw library, but apparently this is not sufficient for most projects.
>> Until we reach an acceptable common wrapper (with verifiable builds),
>> we¹re happy to have folks contribute their desired wrapper for hosting.
>> Mozilla contributed the Firefox Gecko Media Plugin (GMP) wrapper. They
>> were first to contribute, so they were hosted first, not due to any
>> special privilege.
>>
>> Mo
>>
>> On 11/6/14, 1:29 PM, Ron <ron@debian.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 09:14:27PM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 2:39 PM, tim panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Agreed, the worst aspect of any adoption of H264 is that it makes it
>>>> significantly more difficult to
>>>> produce a custom ¹secure¹ build of firefox that has been independently
>>>> reviewed for special use-cases
>>>> (press, humanitarian workers etc).
>>>>
>>> Why is this true? We currently build OpenH264 and then send the binary to
>>> Cisco but keep a hash for comparison. Why is it more difficult to review
>>> this?
>>>
>> Is Cisco offering to ship such binaries for anyone who wants to build
>> them, or is this a special privilege they offered to you to win your
>> support for their scheme?
>>    Ron
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>