> AFAICT, for video, that just records the screen. I do that with > Shift-Alt-F12 start, Shift-Alt-F11 stop (fvwm bindings to customised > ffmpeg commands). But the disadvantages of that method (it gets > polluted by all sorts of screen clutter, it's uses up CPU, you're > recording a resampled image) is precisely why I steal from the > browser's cache. The image is at the original resolution, it's as > clean as when it arrives from the site, it just copies files with > cp, so it doesn't load the CPU.
Indeed, I wish I could just use a "dumb-client" for Jitsi which just dumps the data it receives with proper meta-info to keep things in sync, that would avoid the uncompress+recompress of video which is too taxing CPU-wise for my older machines. > But I've still no idea of what this new, cache-less technology is > that browsers play. I'd expect they simply skip the "save to disk" part and use an in-memory buffer instead, which is probably simpler and arguably more efficient (as long as that buffer doesn't grow too large). Stefan