-<p>A few years ago, I was involved in a project planning to use
-Windows file servers as home directory servers for Debian
-Edu/Skolelinux machines. This was thought to be no problem, as the
-access would be through the SMB network file system protocol, and we
-knew other sites used SMB with unix and samba as the file server to
-mount home directories without any problems. But, after months of
-struggling, we had to conclude that our goal was impossible.</p>
-
-<p>The reason is simply that while SMB can be used for home
-directories when the file server is Samba running on Unix, this only
-work because of Samba have some extensions and the fact that the
-underlying file system is a unix file system. When using a Windows
-file server, the underlying file system do not have POSIX semantics,
-and several programs will fail if the users home directory where they
-want to store their configuration lack POSIX semantics.</p>
-
-<p>As part of this work, I wrote a small C program I want to share
-with you all, to replicate a few of the problematic applications (like
-OpenOffice.org and GCompris) and see if the file system was working as
-it should. If you find yourself in spooky file system land, it might
-help you find your way out again. This is the fs-test.c source:</p>
-
-<pre>
-/*
- * Some tests to check the file system sematics. Used to verify that
- * CIFS from a windows server do not work properly as a linux home
- * directory.
- * License: GPL v2 or later
- *
- * needs libsqlite3-dev and build-essential installed
- * compile with: gcc -Wall -lsqlite3 -DTEST_SQLITE fs-test.c -o fs-test
-*/
-
-#define _FILE_OFFSET_BITS 64
-#define _LARGEFILE_SOURCE 1
-#define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE 1
-
-#define _GNU_SOURCE /* for asprintf() */
-
-#include &lt;errno.h>
-#include &lt;fcntl.h>
-#include &lt;stdio.h>
-#include &lt;string.h>
-#include &lt;stdlib.h>
-#include &lt;sys/file.h>
-#include &lt;sys/stat.h>
-#include &lt;sys/types.h>
-#include &lt;unistd.h>
-
-#ifdef TEST_SQLITE
-/*
- * Test sqlite open, as done by gcompris require the libsqlite3-dev
- * package and linking with -lsqlite3. A more low level test is
- * below.
- * See also &lt;URL: http://www.sqlite.org./faq.html#q5 >.
- */
-#include &lt;sqlite3.h>
-#define CREATE_TABLE_USERS \
- "CREATE TABLE users (user_id INT UNIQUE, login TEXT, lastname TEXT, firstname TEXT, birthdate TEXT, class_id INT ); "
-int test_sqlite_open(void) {
- char *zErrMsg;
- char *name = "testsqlite.db";
- sqlite3 *db=NULL;
- unlink(name);
- int rc = sqlite3_open(name, &db);
- if( rc ){
- printf("error: sqlite open of %s failed: %s\n", name, sqlite3_errmsg(db));
- sqlite3_close(db);
- return -1;
- }
-
- /* create tables */
- rc = sqlite3_exec(db,CREATE_TABLE_USERS, NULL, 0, &zErrMsg);
- if( rc != SQLITE_OK ){
- printf("error: sqlite table create failed: %s\n", zErrMsg);
- sqlite3_close(db);
- return -1;
- }
- printf("info: sqlite worked\n");
- sqlite3_close(db);
- return 0;
-}
-#endif /* TEST_SQLITE */
-
-/*
- * Demonstrate locking issue found in gcompris using sqlite3. This
- * work with ext3, but not with cifs server on Windows 2003. This is
- * done in the sqlite3 library.
- * See also
- * &lt;URL:http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2001-08/msg00854.html> and the
- * POSIX specification
- * &lt;URL:http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/fcntl.html>.
- */
-int test_gcompris_locking(void) {
- struct flock fl;
- char *name = "testsqlite.db";
- unlink(name);
- int fd = open(name, O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_LARGEFILE, 0644);
- printf("info: testing fcntl locking\n");
-
- fl.l_whence = SEEK_SET;
- fl.l_pid = getpid();
- printf(" Read-locking 1 byte from 1073741824");
- fl.l_start = 1073741824;
- fl.l_len = 1;
- fl.l_type = F_RDLCK;
- if (0 != fcntl(fd, F_SETLK, &fl) ) printf(" - error!\n"); else printf("\n");
-
- printf(" Read-locking 510 byte from 1073741826");
- fl.l_start = 1073741826;
- fl.l_len = 510;
- fl.l_type = F_RDLCK;
- if (0 != fcntl(fd, F_SETLK, &fl) ) printf(" - error!\n"); else printf("\n");
-
- printf(" Unlocking 1 byte from 1073741824");
- fl.l_start = 1073741824;
- fl.l_len = 1;
- fl.l_type = F_UNLCK;
- if (0 != fcntl(fd, F_SETLK, &fl) ) printf(" - error!\n"); else printf("\n");
-
- printf(" Write-locking 1 byte from 1073741824");
- fl.l_start = 1073741824;
- fl.l_len = 1;
- fl.l_type = F_WRLCK;
- if (0 != fcntl(fd, F_SETLK, &fl) ) printf(" - error!\n"); else printf("\n");
-
- printf(" Write-locking 510 byte from 1073741826");
- fl.l_start = 1073741826;
- fl.l_len = 510;
- if (0 != fcntl(fd, F_SETLK, &fl) ) printf(" - error!\n"); else printf("\n");
-
- printf(" Unlocking 2 byte from 1073741824");
- fl.l_start = 1073741824;
- fl.l_len = 2;
- fl.l_type = F_UNLCK;
- if (0 != fcntl(fd, F_SETLK, &fl) ) printf(" - error!\n"); else printf("\n");
-
- close(fd);
- return 0;
-}
-
-/*
- * Test if permissions of freshly created directories allow entries
- * below them. This was a problem with OpenOffice.org and gcompris.
- * Mounting with option 'sync' seem to solve this problem while
- * slowing down file operations.
- */
-int test_subdirectory_creation(void) {
-#define LEVELS 5
- char *path = strdup("test");
- char *dirs[LEVELS];
- int level;
- printf("info: testing subdirectory creation\n");
- for (level = 0; level &lt; LEVELS; level++) {
- char *newpath = NULL;
- if (-1 == mkdir(path, 0777)) {
- printf(" error: Unable to create directory '%s': %s\n",
- path, strerror(errno));
- break;
- }
- asprintf(&newpath, "%s/%s", path, "test");
- free(path);
- path = newpath;
- }
- return 0;
-}
-
-/*
- * Test if symlinks can be created. This was a problem detected with
- * KDE.
- */
-int test_symlinks(void) {
- printf("info: testing symlink creation\n");
- unlink("symlink");
- if (-1 == symlink("file", "symlink"))
- printf(" error: Unable to create symlink\n");
- return 0;
-}
-
-int main(int argc, char **argv) {
- printf("Testing POSIX/Unix sematics on file system\n");
- test_symlinks();
- test_subdirectory_creation();
-#ifdef TEST_SQLITE
- test_sqlite_open();
-#endif /* TEST_SQLITE */
- test_gcompris_locking();
- return 0;
-}
-</pre>
-
-<p>When everything is working, it should print something like
-this:</p>
-
-<pre>
-Testing POSIX/Unix sematics on file system
-info: testing symlink creation
-info: testing subdirectory creation
-info: sqlite worked
-info: testing fcntl locking
- Read-locking 1 byte from 1073741824
- Read-locking 510 byte from 1073741826
- Unlocking 1 byte from 1073741824
- Write-locking 1 byte from 1073741824
- Write-locking 510 byte from 1073741826
- Unlocking 2 byte from 1073741824
-</pre>
-
-<p>I do not remember the exact details of the problems we saw, but one
-of them was with locking, where if I remember correctly, POSIX allow a
-read-only lock to be upgraded to a read-write lock without unlocking
-the read-only lock (while Windows do not). Another was a bug in the
-CIFS/SMB client implementation in the Linux kernel where directory
-meta information would be wrong for a fraction of a second, making
-OpenOffice.org fail to create its deep directory tree because it was
-not allowed to create files in its freshly created directory.</p>
-
-<p>Anyway, here is a nice tool for your tool box, might you never need
-it. :)</p>
+<p>Today I discovered
+<a href="http://www.digi.no/860070/google-dropper-h264-stotten-i-chrome">via
+digi.no</a> that the Chrome developers, in a surprising announcement,
+<a href="http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html">yesterday
+announced</a> plans to drop H.264 support for HTML5 &lt;video&gt; in
+the browser. The argument used is that H.264 is not a "completely
+open" codec technology. If you believe H.264 was free for everyone
+to use, I recommend having a look at the essay
+"<a href="http://webmink.com/essays/h-264/">H.264 – Not The Kind Of
+Free That Matters</a>". It is not free of cost for creators of video
+tools, nor those of us that want to publish on the Internet, and the
+terms provided by MPEG-LA excludes free software projects from
+licensing the patents needed for H.264. Some background information
+on the Google announcement is available from
+<a href="http://www.osnews.com/story/24243/Google_To_Drop_H264_Support_from_Chrome">OSnews</a>.
+A good read. :)</p>
+
+<p>Personally, I believe it is great that Google is taking a stand to
+promote equal terms for everyone when it comes to video publishing on
+the Internet. This can only be done by publishing using free and open
+standards, which is only possible if the web browsers provide support
+for these free and open standards. At the moment there seem to be two
+camps in the web browser world when it come to video support. Some
+browsers support H.264, and others support
+<a href="http://www.theora.org/">Ogg Theora</a> and
+<a href="http://www.webmproject.org/">WebM</a>
+(<a href="http://www.diracvideo.org/">Dirac</a> is not really an option
+yet), forcing those of us that want to publish video on the Internet
+and which can not accept the terms of use presented by MPEG-LA for
+H.264 to not reach all potential viewers.
+Wikipedia keep <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video">an
+updated summary</a> of the current browser support.</p>
+
+<p>Not surprising, several people would prefer Google to keep
+promoting H.264, and John Gruber
+<a href="http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/simple_questions">presents
+the mind set</a> of these people quite well. His rhetorical questions
+provoked a reply from Thom Holwerda with another set of questions
+<a href="http://www.osnews.com/story/24245/10_Questions_for_John_Gruber_Regarding_H_264_WebM">presenting
+the issues with H.264</a>. Both are worth a read.</p>
+
+<p>Some argue that if Google is dropping H.264 because it isn't free,
+they should also drop support for the Adobe Flash plugin. This
+argument was covered by Simon Phipps in
+<a href="http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2011/01/google-and-h264---far-from-hypocritical/index.htm">todays
+blog post</a>, which I find to put the issue in context. To me it
+make perfect sense to drop native H.264 support for HTML5 in the
+browser while still allowing plugins.</p>
+
+<p>I suspect the reason this announcement make so many people protest,
+is that all the users and promoters of H.264 suddenly get an uneasy
+feeling that they might be backing the wrong horse. A lot of TV
+broadcasters have been moving to H.264 the last few years, and a lot
+of money has been invested in hardware based on the belief that they
+could use the same video format for both broadcasting and web
+publishing. Suddenly this belief is shaken.</p>
+
+<p>An interesting question is why Google is doing this. While the
+presented argument might be true enough, I believe Google would only
+present the argument if the change make sense from a business
+perspective. One reason might be that they are currently negotiating
+with MPEG-LA over royalties or usage terms, and giving MPEG-LA the
+feeling that dropping H.264 completely from Chroome, Youtube and
+Google Video would improve the negotiation position of Google.
+Another reason might be that Google want to save money by not having
+to pay the video tax to MPEG-LA at all, and thus want to move to a
+video format not requiring royalties at all. A third reason might be
+that the Chrome development team simply want to avoid the
+Chrome/Chromium split to get more help with the development of Chrome.
+I guess time will tell.</p>
+
+<p>Update 2011-01-15: The Google Chrome team provided
+<a href="http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/more-about-chrome-html-video-codec.html">more
+background and information on the move</a> it a blog post yesterday.</p>