On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Neal Gompa wrote: > >> My biggest concern among all the choices is the multimedia support. >> Fedora cannot ship a full-featured codec stack in any of its spins due >> to various legal issues. > > Means, it's not an issue specific to any browser (they all suffer > similarly), so probably will be a minor issue in *this* decision-making, > imo. > That's not quite true. For example, Chromium is built with a bundled custom ffmpeg, and it's not split out into its own subpackage, meaning that there's no way to replace it without having to rebuild all of Chromium. Chromium is hard to build and harder for users to build. Since we don't have a system-wide ffmpeg package, I assume we have the same problem with QtWebEngine, too. That affects every QtWebEngine based browser. >> How do the browsers compare for the Fedora user who wants to get more > codec support himself? > > That said, firefox (or any browser utilizing gstreamer) has a slight edge > here, due to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OpenH264 > > but that's still not great nor a 100% solution, outside of using patented > stuff from rpmfusion.org. As of Fedora 24, Firefox does not use GStreamer. The Mozilla community decided to remove it. Apparently, no one thought it was any good. I seem to recall that QtWebKit could be used with GStreamer. Do we have any web browsers that use QtWebKit, Qt5, and GStreamer? -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ kde mailing list kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
