Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (8182)

• Saying Goodbye To Old Machines

  1er décembre 2014, par Multimedia Mike — General, powerpc, via

  I recently sent a few old machines off for recycling. Both had relevance to the early days of the FATE testing effort. As is my custom, I photographed them (poorly, of course).

  First, there’s the PowerPC-based Mac Mini I procured thanks to a Craigslist ad in late 2006. I had plans to develop automated FFmpeg building and testing and was already looking ahead toward testing multiple CPU architectures. Again, this was 2006 and PowerPC wasn’t completely on the outs yet– although Apple’s MacTel transition was in full swing, the entire new generation of video game consoles was based on PowerPC.

  
  

  

  Click for larger image

  
  

  I remember trying to find a Mac Mini PPC on Craigslist. Many were to be found, but all asked more than the price of even a new Mac Mini Intel, always because the seller was leaving all of last year’s applications and perhaps including a monitor, neither of which I needed. Fortunately, I found this bare Mac Mini. Also fortunate was the fact that it was far easier to install Linux on it than the first PowerPC machine I owned.

  After FATE operation transitioned away from me, I still kept the machine in service as an edge server and automated backup machine. That is, until the hard drive failed on reboot one day. Thus, when it was finally time to recycle the computer, I felt it necessary to disassemble the machine and remove the hard drive for possible salvage and then for destruction.
  

  If you’ve ever attempted to upgrade or otherwise service this style of Mac Mini, you will no doubt recognize the pictured paint scraper tool as standard kit. I have had that tool since I first endeavored to upgrade the RAM to 1 GB from the standard 1/2 GB. Performing such activities on a Mac Mini is tedious, but only if you care about putting it back together afterwards.

  The next machine is a bit older. I put it together nearly a decade ago, early in 2005. This machine’s original duty was “download agent”– this would be more specifically called a BitTorrent machine in modern tech parlance. Back then, I placed it on someone else’s woefully underutilized home broadband connection (with their permission, of course) when I was too cheap to upgrade from dialup.

  
  

  

  Click for larger image

  
  

  This is a small form factor system from VIA that was clearly designed with home theater PC (HTPC) use cases in mind. It has a VIA C3 x86-compatible CPU (according to my notes, Centaur VIA Samuel 2 stepping 03, flags : fpu de tsc msr cx8 mtrr pge mmx 3dnow) and 128 MB of RAM (initially ; I upgraded it to 512 MB some years later, just for the sake of doing it). And then there was the 120 GB PATA HD for all that downloaded goodness.

  
  

  

  Click for larger image

  
  

  I have specific memories of a time when my main computer at home wasn’t working correctly for one reason or another. Instead, I logged into this machine remotely via SSH to make several optimizations and fixes on FFmpeg’s VP3/Theora video decoder, all from the terminal, without being able to see the decoded images with my own eyes (which is why I insist that even blind people could work on video codecs).

  By the time I got my own broadband, I had become inspired to attempt the automated build and test system for FFmpeg. This was the machine I used for prototyping early brainstorms of FATE. By the time I put a basic build/test system into place in early 2008, I had much faster computers that could build and test the project– obvious limitation of this machine is that it could take at least 1/2 hour to build the entire codebase, and that was the project from 8 years ago.

  So the machine got stuffed in a closet somewhere along the line. The next time I pulled it out was in 2010 when I wanted to toy with Dreamcast programming once more (the machine appears in one of the photos in this post). This was the only machine I still owned which still had an RS-232 serial port (I didn’t know much about USB serial converters yet), plus it still had a bunch of pre-compiled DC homebrew binaries (I was having trouble getting the toolchain to work right).

  The next time I dusted off this machine was late last year when I was trying some experiments with the Microsoft Xbox’s IDE drive (a photo in that post also shows the machine ; this thing shows up a lot on this blog). The VIA machine was the only machine I still owned which had 40-pin IDE connectors which was crucial to my experiment.

  At this point, I was trying to make the machine more useful which meant replacing the ancient Gentoo Linux distribution as well as simply interacting with it via a keyboard and mouse. I have a long Evernote entry documenting a comedy of errors revolving around this little box. The interaction troubles were due to the fact that I didn’t have any PS/2 keyboards left and I couldn’t make a USB keyboard work with it. Diego was able to explain that I needed to flip a bit in the BIOS to address this which worked. As for upgrading the OS, I tried numerous Linux distributions large and small, mostly focusing on the small. None worked. I eventually learned that, while I was trying to use i686 distributions, this machine did not actually qualify as an i686 CPU ; installations usually booted but failed because the default kernel required the cmov instruction. I was advised to try i386 distros instead. My notes don’t indicate whether I had any luck on this front before I gave up and moved on.

  I just made the connection that this VIA machine has two 40-pin IDE connectors which means that the thing was technically capable of supporting up to 4 IDE devices. Obviously, the computer couldn’t really accommodate that in terms of space or power. When I wanted to try installing a new OS, I needed take off the top and connect a rather bulky IDE CD-ROM drive. This computer’s casing was supposed to be able to support a slimline optical drive (perhaps like the type found in laptops), but I could never quite visualize how that was supposed to work, space-wise. When I disassembled the PowerPC Mac Mini, I realized I might be able to repurpose that machines optical drive for this computer. Obviously, I thought better of trying since both machines are off to the recycle pile.

  I would still like to work on the Xbox project a bit more, but I procured a different, unused, much more powerful yet still old computer that has a motherboard with 1 PATA connector in addition to 6 SATA connectors. If I ever get around to toying with Linux kernel development, this should be a much more appropriate platform to use.

  I thought about turning this machine into an old Windows XP (and lower, down to Windows 3.1) gaming platform ; the capabilities of the machine would probably be perfect for a huge portion of my Windows game collection. But I think the lack of an optical drive renders this idea intractable. External USB drives are likely out of the question since there is very little chance that this motherboard featured USB 2.0 (the specs don’t mention 2.0, so the USB ports are probably 1.1).

  So it is with fond memories that I send off both machines, sans hard drives, to the recycle pile. I’m still deciding on an appropriate course of action for failed hard drives, though.

• WebVTT as a W3C Recommendation

  1er janvier 2014, par silvia

  Three weeks ago I attended TPAC, the annual meeting of W3C Working Groups. One of the meetings was of the Timed Text Working Group (TT-WG), that has been specifying TTML, the Timed Text Markup Language. It is now proposed that WebVTT be also standardised through the same Working Group.

  How did that happen, you may ask, in particular since WebVTT and TTML have in the past been portrayed as rival caption formats ? How will the WebVTT spec that is currently under development in the Text Track Community Group (TT-CG) move through a Working Group process ?

  I’ll explain first why there is a need for WebVTT to become a W3C Recommendation, and then how this is proposed to be part of the Timed Text Working Group deliverables, and finally how I can see this working between the TT-CG and the TT-WG.

  Advantages of a W3C Recommendation

  TTML is a XML-based markup format for captions developed during the time that XML was all the hotness. It has become a W3C standard (a so-called “Recommendation”) despite not having been implemented in any browsers (if you ask me : that’s actually a flaw of the W3C standardisation process : it requires only two interoperable implementations of any kind – and that could be anyone’s JavaScript library or Flash demonstrator – it doesn’t actually require browser implementations. But I digress…). To be fair, a subpart of TTML is by now implemented in Internet Explorer, but all the other major browsers have thus far rejected proposals of implementation.

  Because of its Recommendation status, TTML has become the basis for several other caption standards that other SDOs have picked : the SMPTE’s SMPTE-TT format, the EBU’s EBU-TT format, and the DASH Industry Forum’s use of SMPTE-TT. SMPTE-TT has also become the “safe harbour” format for the US legislation on captioning as decided by the FCC. (Note that the FCC requirements for captions on the Web are actually based on a list of features rather than requiring a specific format. But that will be the topic of a different blog post…)

  WebVTT is much younger than TTML. TTML was developed as an interchange format among caption authoring systems. WebVTT was built for rendering in Web browsers and with HTML5 in mind. It meets the requirements of the <track> element and supports more than just captions/subtitles. WebVTT is popular with browser developers and has already been implemented in all major browsers (Firefox Nightly is the last to implement it – all others have support already released).

  As we can see and as has been proven by the HTML spec and multiple other specs : browsers don’t wait for specifications to have W3C Recommendation status before they implement them. Nor do they really care about the status of a spec – what they care about is whether a spec makes sense for the Web developer and user communities and whether it fits in the Web platform. WebVTT has obviously achieved this status, even with an evolving spec. (Note that the spec tries very hard not to break backwards compatibility, thus all past implementations will at least be compatible with the more basic features of the spec.)

  Given that Web browsers don’t need WebVTT to become a W3C standard, why then should we spend effort in moving the spec through the W3C process to become a W3C Recommendation ?

  The modern Web is now much bigger than just Web browsers. Web specifications are being used in all kinds of devices including TV set-top boxes, phone and tablet apps, and even unexpected devices such as white goods. Videos are increasingly omnipresent thus exposing deaf and hard-of-hearing users to ever-growing challenges in interacting with content on diverse devices. Some of these devices will not use auto-updating software but fixed versions so can’t easily adapt to new features. Thus, caption producers (both commercial and community) need to be able to author captions (and other video accessibility content as defined by the HTML5 element) towards a feature set that is clearly defined to be supported by such non-updating devices.

  Understandably, device vendors in this space have a need to build their technology on standardised specifications. SDOs for such device technologies like to reference fixed specifications so the feature set is not continually updating. To reference WebVTT, they could use a snapshot of the specification at any time and reference that, but that’s not how SDOs work. They prefer referencing an officially sanctioned and tested version of a specification – for a W3C specification that means creating a W3C Recommendation of the WebVTT spec.

  Taking WebVTT on a W3C recommendation track is actually advantageous for browsers, too, because a test suite will have to be developed that proves that features are implemented in an interoperable manner. In summary, I can see the advantages and personally support the effort to take WebVTT through to a W3C Recommendation.

  Choice of Working Group

  FAIK this is the first time that a specification developed in a Community Group is being moved into the recommendation track. This is something that has been expected when the W3C created CGs, but not something that has an established process yet.

  The first question of course is which WG would take it through to Recommendation ? Would we create a new Working Group or find an existing one to move the specification through ? Since WGs involve a lot of overhead, the preference was to add WebVTT to the charter of an existing WG. The two obvious candidates were the HTML WG and the TT-WG – the first because it’s where WebVTT originated and the latter because it’s the closest thematically.

  Adding a deliverable to a WG is a major undertaking. The TT-WG is currently in the process of re-chartering and thus a suggestion was made to add WebVTT to the milestones of this WG. TBH that was not my first choice. Since I’m already an editor in the HTML WG and WebVTT is very closely related to HTML and can be tested extensively as part of HTML, I preferred the HTML WG. However, adding WebVTT to the TT-WG has some advantages, too.

  Since TTML is an exchange format, lots of captions that will be created (at least professionally) will be in TTML and TTML-related formats. It makes sense to create a mapping from TTML to WebVTT for rendering in browsers. The expertise of both, TTML and WebVTT experts is required to develop a good mapping – as has been shown when we developed the mapping from CEA608/708 to WebVTT. Also, captioning experts are already in the TT-WG, so it helps to get a second set of eyes onto WebVTT.

  A disadvantage of moving a specification out of a CG into a WG is, however, that you potentially lose a lot of the expertise that is already involved in the development of the spec. People don’t easily re-subscribe to additional mailing lists or want the additional complexity of involving another community (see e.g. this email).

  So, a good process needs to be developed to allow everyone to contribute to the spec in the best way possible without requiring duplicate work. How can we do that ?

  The forthcoming process

  At TPAC the TT-WG discussed for several hours what the next steps are in taking WebVTT through the TT-WG to recommendation status (agenda with slides). I won’t bore you with the different views – if you are keen, you can read the minutes.

  What I came away with is the following process :

  1. Fix a few more bugs in the CG until we’re happy with the feature set in the CG. This should match the feature set that we realistically expect devices to implement for a first version of the WebVTT spec.
  2. Make a FSA (Final Specification Agreement) in the CG to create a stable reference and a clean IPR position.
  3. Assuming that the TT-WG’s charter has been approved with WebVTT as a milestone, we would next bring the FSA specification into the TT-WG as FPWD (First Public Working Draft) and immediately do a Last Call which effectively freezes the feature set (this is possible because there has already been wide community review of the WebVTT spec) ; in parallel, the CG can continue to develop the next version of the WebVTT spec with new features (just like it is happening with the HTML5 and HTML5.1 specifications).
  4. Develop a test suite and address any issues in the Last Call document (of course, also fix these issues in the CG version of the spec).
  5. As per W3C process, substantive and minor changes to Last Call documents have to be reported and raised issues addressed before the spec can progress to the next level : Candidate Recommendation status.
  6. For the next step – Proposed Recommendation status – an implementation report is necessary, and thus the test suite needs to be finalized for the given feature set. The feature set may also be reduced at this stage to just the ones implemented interoperably, leaving any other features for the next version of the spec.
  7. The final step is Recommendation status, which simply requires sufficient support and endorsement by W3C members.

  The first version of the WebVTT spec naturally has a focus on captioning (and subtitling), since this has been the dominant use case that we have focused on this far and it’s the part that is the most compatibly implemented feature set of WebVTT in browsers. It’s my expectation that the next version of WebVTT will have a lot more features related to audio descriptions, chapters and metadata. Thus, this seems a good time for a first version feature freeze.

  There are still several obstacles towards progressing WebVTT as a milestone of the TT-WG. Apart from the need to get buy-in from the TT-WG, the TT-CG, and the AC (Adivisory Committee who have to approve the new charter), we’re also looking at the license of the specification document.

  The CG specification has an open license that allows creating derivative work as long as there is attribution, while the W3C document license for documents on the recommendation track does not allow the creation of derivative work unless given explicit exceptions. This is an issue that is currently being discussed in the W3C with a proposal for a CC-BY license on the Recommendation track. However, my view is that it’s probably ok to use the different document licenses : the TT-WG will work on WebVTT 1.0 and give it a W3C document license, while the CG starts working on the next WebVTT version under the open CG license. It probably actually makes sense to have a less open license on a frozen spec.

  Making the best of a complicated world

  WebVTT is now proposed as part of the recharter of the TT-WG. I have no idea how complicated the process will become to achieve a W3C WebVTT 1.0 Recommendation, but I am hoping that what is outlined above will be workable in such a way that all of us get to focus on progressing the technology.

  At TPAC I got the impression that the TT-WG is committed to progressing WebVTT to Recommendation status. I know that the TT-CG is committed to continue developing WebVTT to its full potential for all kinds of media-time aligned content with new kinds already discussed at FOMS. Let’s enable both groups to achieve their goals. As a consequence, we will allow the two formats to excel where they do : TTML as an interchange format and WebVTT as a browser rendering format.

• Long Overdue MediaWiki Upgrade

  5 février 2014, par Multimedia Mike — General

  What do I do ? What I do ? This library book is 42 years overdue !
  I admit that it’s mine, yet I can’t pay the fine,
  Should I turn it in or should I hide it again ?
  What do I do ? What do I do ?

  I internalized the forgoing paean to the perils of procrastination by Shel Silverstein in my formative years. It’s probably why I’ve never paid a single cent in late fees in my entire life.

  However, I have been woefully negligent as the steward of the MediaWiki software that drives the world famous MultimediaWiki, the internet’s central repository of obscure technical knowledge related to multimedia. It is currently running of version 1.6 software. The latest version is 1.22.

  The Story So Far
  According to my records, I first set up the wiki late in 2005. I don’t know which MediaWiki release I was using at the time. I probably conducted a few upgrades in the early days, but that went by the wayside perhaps in 2007. My web host stopped allowing shell access and the MediaWiki upgrade process pretty much requires running a PHP script from a command line. Upgrade time came around and I put off the project. Weeks turned into months turned into years until, according to some notes, the wiki abruptly stopped working in July, 2011. Suddenly, there were PHP errors about “Namespace” being a reserved word.

  While I finally laid out a plan to upgrade the wiki after all these years, I eventually found that the problem had been caused when my webhost upgraded from PHP 5.2 -> 5.3. I also learned of a small number of code changes that caused the problem to go away, thus kicking the can down the road once more.

  Then a new problem showed up last week. I think it might be related to a new version of PHP again. This time, a few other things on my site broke, and I learned that my webhost now allows me to select a PHP version to use (with the version then set to “auto”, which didn’t yield much information). Rolling back to an earlier version of PHP might have solved the problem easily.

  But NO ! I made the determination that this goes no further. I want this wiki upgraded.

  The Arduous Upgrade Path
  There are 2 general upgrade paths I can think of :
  

  1. Upgrade in place on the server
  2. Upgrade offline and put the site back on the server

  Approach #1 is problematic since I don’t have direct shell access, though I considered using something like PHP Shell. Approach #2 involves getting the entire set of wiki files and a backup of the MySQL tables. This is workable since I keep automated backups of these items anyway.

  In fairly short order, I was able to set up a working copy of the MultimediaWiki hosted on a local Linux machine. Now what’s the move ? The MediaWiki software I’m running is 1.6.10. The very latest, as of this upgrade project is 1.22.2. I suppose it’s way too much to hope that the software will upgrade cleanly from 1.6.x straight to 1.22.x, but I guess it’s worth a shot…

  HA ! No chance. Okay, next idea is to march through the various versions and upgrade each in turn. MediaWiki has all their historic releases online, all the way back to the 1.3 lineage. I decided that the latest of each lineage should upgrade cleanly from anything in the previous version of lineage. E.g., 1.6.10 should upgrade cleanly to 1.7.3 (last in the 1.7 series). This seemed to be a workable strategy. So I downloaded the latest of each series, unpacked, and copied all the wiki files over the working installation and ran ‘php update.php’ in the maintenance/ directory.

  The process is tedious and not without its obstacles. I consider this penance for my years of wiki neglect. First, I run into the “PHP Parse error : syntax error, unexpected T_NAMESPACE, expecting T_STRING” issue, the same that I saw years ago after the webhost transitioned from PHP 5.2 -> 5.3. I could solve this by editing assorted files and changing “Namespace” -> “MWNamespace” (which is what MediaWiki did by version 1.13). But I would prefer not to.

  Instead, I downloaded the source for PHP 5.2 and compiled it in a separate directory, then called ‘/path/to/php/5.2/bin/php update.php’. Problem solved.

  The next problem is that a bunch of the database update scripts are specifying “Type=InnoDB”. This isn’t supported by modern MySQL databases. Now, it’s “Engine=InnoDB”. A quick search & replace at the command line fixes this for 1.6.x… and 1.7.x… and 1.8 through 1.12. Finally, at 1.13, it was no longer necessary. As a bonus, at 1.13, I was able to test the installation since Namespace had been renamed to MWNamespace. I would later learn that the table type modifications probably could have been simplified in by changing “$wgDBmysql4 = true ;” to “$wgDBmysql5 = true ;” somewhere in LocalSettings.php.

  Command line upgrading worked smoothly up through 1.18 series when I got a new syntax error :

  <br />
PHP Fatal error:  Call to a member function addMessages() on a non-object in /mnt/sdb1/archive/wiki/extensions/Cite.php on line 68<br />

  Best I could do was comment out that line. I hope that doesn’t break anything important.

  In the home stretch, the very last transition (1.21 -> 1.22) failed :

  PHP Fatal error :  Cannot redeclare wfProfileIn() (previously declared in 
  /mnt/sdb1/archive/wiki/includes/profiler/Profiler.php:33) in 
  /mnt/sdb1/archive/wiki/includes/ProfilerStub.php on line 25
  

  Apparently, this problem arises occasionally since 1.18. I found a way around it thanks to this page : Deleted the file StartProfiler.php. Who am I to argue ?

  Upon completing the transition to 1.22, the wiki doesn’t look correct– the pictures aren’t showing up. The solution was to fix the temporary directory via LocalSettings.php.

  Back To Production
  Okay, it all works again ! Locally, that is. How to get it back to the server ? My first idea was that, knowing that this upgrade process can succeed, try stepping through the upgrade process again, but tell the update.php scripts to access the database tables on multimedia.cx. This seemed to be working for awhile, even though the database update phase often took 4-5 minutes. However, the transition from 1.8.5 -> 1.9.6 took 75 minutes and then timed out. According to my notes, “This isn’t going to work.”

  The new process :

  1. Dump the database tables from the local database.
  2. Create a new database remotely (melanson_wiki_ng).
  3. Dump the database table into melanson_wiki_ng.
  4. Move the index.php file out of the wiki files directory temporarily (or rename).
  5. Modify the LocalSettings.php to talk to the new database.
  6. Perform a lftp mirror operation in order to send all the files up to the server.
  7. Send the index.php file and hope beyond hope that everything magically works.

  And that’s the story of how the updated MultimediaWiki came back online. Despite the database dump file being over 110 MB, it only tool MySQL 1m45s to transmit it all to the remote server (let’s hear it for the ‘–compress’ option). For comparison, inserting the tables back into a fresh local database took 1m07s.

  When the MultimediaWiki was first live again, it loaded, but ever so slowly. This is when I finally looked into optimization and found that I was lacking any caching. So as a bonus, the MultimediaWiki should be much faster now.

  Going Forward
  For all I know, I did everything described here in the hardest way possible. But at least I got it done. Unless I learn of a better process, future upgrades will probably look similar to this.

  Additionally, I should probably take some time to figure out what new features are part of the standard MediaWiki distribution nowadays.