Re: WebRTC, google and firefox
well i believe vimscript is not aligned with my pillars either. vimscript is no where near aligned with anybody pillars i look at the usr/share dir for vim and i shudder. all of that file recognition and syntax highlighting is implemented in the worst language ever. and it's all bloated because color highlighting is for weird people anyway On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote: > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 12:00:57PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: >> dbus isn't big at all though, and it's even smaller when you consider >> that something else in your modern desktop env is going to end up >> depending on it >> >> i'm curious about what gnome components you are talking about. dconf, >> again, is miniscule > > Why do you assume that my desktop env is modern in sense of being D-Bus > enabled? Neither of its pillars - cwm, xterm, tmux and vim - has anything to > do with D-Bus. > > My point is not about the _size_ of dependencies, but rather about their > _nature_. See, I don't use any features of D-Bus, as none of the apps I > installed uses it. (Well, my browser does something on D-Bus, but (1) > optionally and (2) there is nothing else connected.) I am not even aware of > any useful way to use D-Bus. Obviosly, I don't need it. > > Same goes for dconf, as I keep all the settings I can out of dconf's touch, > just because I don't like it. To my knowledge, no dconf key is altered in my > setup, so I probably don't make any actual use of it anyway. > > -- > Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
Re: WebRTC, google and firefox
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 12:00:57PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: > dbus isn't big at all though, and it's even smaller when you consider > that something else in your modern desktop env is going to end up > depending on it > > i'm curious about what gnome components you are talking about. dconf, > again, is miniscule Why do you assume that my desktop env is modern in sense of being D-Bus enabled? Neither of its pillars - cwm, xterm, tmux and vim - has anything to do with D-Bus. My point is not about the _size_ of dependencies, but rather about their _nature_. See, I don't use any features of D-Bus, as none of the apps I installed uses it. (Well, my browser does something on D-Bus, but (1) optionally and (2) there is nothing else connected.) I am not even aware of any useful way to use D-Bus. Obviosly, I don't need it. Same goes for dconf, as I keep all the settings I can out of dconf's touch, just because I don't like it. To my knowledge, no dconf key is altered in my setup, so I probably don't make any actual use of it anyway. -- Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
Re: WebRTC, google and firefox
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 06:33:04PM -0800, patrick keshishian wrote: > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Brad Smith wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 02:10:45PM +0100, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 06:53:43PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: > >> > <.> It'll be a lot easier to have an > >> > HTML5 > >> > compliant browser with support for WebRTC all over the place then it will > >> > be to get some of these services using proprietary protocols, plugins, > >> > and > >> > host apps to be ported all over the place. > >> > >> I'm not sure it's all that easy. Effectively, HTML5 turns out being equal > >> to > >> OOXML and flash in terms of reimplementation possibility: albeit quite > >> trivial > >> to reimplement in terms of specs availability, the task is too huge to > >> undertake for a community project. > > > > Which community is this relevant to? A niche browser literally no one uses? > > > > The relevant rendering engines that count already have support and its much > > easier to reimplment WebRTC over Flash. WebRTC is fully open spec and has > > already been done. Flash is not and has not been done. > > not to give the impression that I care much about flash (i do not). > however, i was under the impression adobe had opened the > specifications[1] to its flash technology. A lot of it is but not everything that is required for an open source implementation has been provided. HTML5 is still the better option anyway even if there was enough interest to bother going the full mile with an open source Flash implementation. > regardless, i find it very ironic how something that was initially > designed to be a thin-client (i.e., the web-browser) has grown to the That's your opinion. I've never thought of a browser as needing to be thin. It is thin and useless or rely upon plugins and having some OS's with plugins and lots without. HTML5 builds infrastructure to remove the necessity for plugins and allowing the same functionality everywhere. > monster it is. as pointed out by someone else (sorry didn't keep track > of messages or even threads that closely, since it isn't really a > topic of choice atm) it is amazing how much software, say, firefox > requires. e.g., pulling in dbus. someone said (again I forget who) DBus is small and a very common dependency on systems anyway. > that dbus is small ... still it is crap i don't want on my system > regardless of how small it may be. but hey, i digress ... the world > has bigger problems than what is being hashed out here. Can you rant about anything more irrelevant? -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: WebRTC, google and firefox
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Brad Smith wrote: > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 02:10:45PM +0100, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 06:53:43PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: >> > <.> It'll be a lot easier to have an HTML5 >> > compliant browser with support for WebRTC all over the place then it will >> > be to get some of these services using proprietary protocols, plugins, and >> > host apps to be ported all over the place. >> >> I'm not sure it's all that easy. Effectively, HTML5 turns out being equal to >> OOXML and flash in terms of reimplementation possibility: albeit quite >> trivial >> to reimplement in terms of specs availability, the task is too huge to >> undertake for a community project. > > Which community is this relevant to? A niche browser literally no one uses? > > The relevant rendering engines that count already have support and its much > easier to reimplment WebRTC over Flash. WebRTC is fully open spec and has > already been done. Flash is not and has not been done. not to give the impression that I care much about flash (i do not). however, i was under the impression adobe had opened the specifications[1] to its flash technology. regardless, i find it very ironic how something that was initially designed to be a thin-client (i.e., the web-browser) has grown to the monster it is. as pointed out by someone else (sorry didn't keep track of messages or even threads that closely, since it isn't really a topic of choice atm) it is amazing how much software, say, firefox requires. e.g., pulling in dbus. someone said (again I forget who) that dbus is small ... still it is crap i don't want on my system regardless of how small it may be. but hey, i digress ... the world has bigger problems than what is being hashed out here. cheers, --patrick [1] http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf.html
Re: WebRTC, google and firefox
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 02:10:45PM +0100, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote: > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 06:53:43PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: > > <.> It'll be a lot easier to have an HTML5 > > compliant browser with support for WebRTC all over the place then it will > > be to get some of these services using proprietary protocols, plugins, and > > host apps to be ported all over the place. > > I'm not sure it's all that easy. Effectively, HTML5 turns out being equal to > OOXML and flash in terms of reimplementation possibility: albeit quite trivial > to reimplement in terms of specs availability, the task is too huge to > undertake for a community project. Which community is this relevant to? A niche browser literally no one uses? The relevant rendering engines that count already have support and its much easier to reimplment WebRTC over Flash. WebRTC is fully open spec and has already been done. Flash is not and has not been done. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: WebRTC, google and firefox
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote: > One may notice that even minimalist web browsers (dwb, surf, uzbl, xombrero) > end up depending on D-BUS and GNOME components. Hell, even Qt-based Arora > pulls dconf. dbus isn't big at all though, and it's even smaller when you consider that something else in your modern desktop env is going to end up depending on it i'm curious about what gnome components you are talking about. dconf, again, is miniscule
Re: WebRTC, google and firefox
Hi,
thanks for the info.
In any case, I have been trying with ekiga and I've got it to work
without a problem with audio (echo cancellation works with a headset)
*and* video.
I think that's more than enough for now. I want to move away from
skype / google talk... I guess my collaborators will have to use ekiga
or something compatible, like XMeeting for the Mac users.
Ciao,
Pau
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 02:10:45PM +0100, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 06:53:43PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote:
>> > <.> It'll be a lot easier to have an HTML5
>> > compliant browser with support for WebRTC all over the place then it will
>> > be to get some of these services using proprietary protocols, plugins, and
>> > host apps to be ported all over the place.
>>
>> I'm not sure it's all that easy. Effectively, HTML5 turns out being equal to
>> OOXML and flash in terms of reimplementation possibility: albeit quite
>> trivial
>> to reimplement in terms of specs availability, the task is too huge to
>> undertake for a community project.
>>
>> That is: one may compute standard usefulness theoretical limit as:
>>
>> int
>> max_useful (int lastpageno)
>> {
>> return 100 / lastpageno;
>> }
>
> Well, 100 is order of magnitude too low, and lastpageno should be increased by
> the number of standards this particular one depends on, but the point still
> stands.
>
> --
> Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
Re: WebRTC, google and firefox
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 02:10:45PM +0100, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 06:53:43PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote:
> > <.> It'll be a lot easier to have an HTML5
> > compliant browser with support for WebRTC all over the place then it will
> > be to get some of these services using proprietary protocols, plugins, and
> > host apps to be ported all over the place.
>
> I'm not sure it's all that easy. Effectively, HTML5 turns out being equal to
> OOXML and flash in terms of reimplementation possibility: albeit quite trivial
> to reimplement in terms of specs availability, the task is too huge to
> undertake for a community project.
>
> That is: one may compute standard usefulness theoretical limit as:
>
> int
> max_useful (int lastpageno)
> {
> return 100 / lastpageno;
> }
Well, 100 is order of magnitude too low, and lastpageno should be increased by
the number of standards this particular one depends on, but the point still
stands.
--
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
Re: WebRTC, google and firefox
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 06:53:43PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote:
> <.> It'll be a lot easier to have an HTML5
> compliant browser with support for WebRTC all over the place then it will
> be to get some of these services using proprietary protocols, plugins, and
> host apps to be ported all over the place.
I'm not sure it's all that easy. Effectively, HTML5 turns out being equal to
OOXML and flash in terms of reimplementation possibility: albeit quite trivial
to reimplement in terms of specs availability, the task is too huge to
undertake for a community project.
That is: one may compute standard usefulness theoretical limit as:
int
max_useful (int lastpageno)
{
return 100 / lastpageno;
}
One may notice that even minimalist web browsers (dwb, surf, uzbl, xombrero)
end up depending on D-BUS and GNOME components. Hell, even Qt-based Arora
pulls dconf. Given the recent (well, not quite recent) news from GNOME
project, in several years it might be easier to implement proper Jingle
support to non-GTK-based jabber client then porting recent
Firefox/Chromium/ to OpenBSD.
--
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
Re: WebRTC, google and firefox
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:47:47PM -0800, patrick keshishian wrote: > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Brad Smith wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 04:46:04PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 10:25:31PM +0100, Pau wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > I have been searching but could not find information in this respect. > >> > > >> > I have 5.2 installed on a thinkpad x220s and, while ekiga seems to work > >> > fine, I have not found a way to make empathy or pidgin work with a gtalk > >> > account. > >> > >> The Pidgin port doesn't have VV support and last time I looked at this > >> it didn't seem to work too well or at all and seemed to be issues with > >> GStreamer and/or other components Pidgin relies upon for Jingle support. > > >> > Should not WebRTC, Google Hangout, work in firefox? > >> > HTML5 should work everywhere I thought? > >> > >> HTML5 entails a variety of different standards and support for those > >> standards in each respective browser. FF and Chromium on OpenBSD still > >> do not have WebRTC support. You're making an assumption which is wrong. > > > > Another thing I forgot to mention. WebRTC is not a part of HTML5 yet. It > > is a work in progress spec and implementations that could potentially be > > a part of HTML5. > > and so the web-browser becomes the OS. I'd rather have WebRTC and what is possible via standardized mecnanisms over Skype, plugins for GTalk, and various other services based on closed apps limited to certain major OS's. It'll be a lot easier to have an HTML5 compliant browser with support for WebRTC all over the place then it will be to get some of these services using proprietary protocols, plugins, and host apps to be ported all over the place. A lot of the focus of HTML5 is to design standardized means of doing what all too often required external plugins and all too often are limited to Windows and maybe OS X at best. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: WebRTC, google and firefox
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Brad Smith wrote: > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 04:46:04PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 10:25:31PM +0100, Pau wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I have been searching but could not find information in this respect. >> > >> > I have 5.2 installed on a thinkpad x220s and, while ekiga seems to work >> > fine, I have not found a way to make empathy or pidgin work with a gtalk >> > account. >> >> The Pidgin port doesn't have VV support and last time I looked at this >> it didn't seem to work too well or at all and seemed to be issues with >> GStreamer and/or other components Pidgin relies upon for Jingle support. >> >> > Should not WebRTC, Google Hangout, work in firefox? >> > HTML5 should work everywhere I thought? >> >> HTML5 entails a variety of different standards and support for those >> standards in each respective browser. FF and Chromium on OpenBSD still >> do not have WebRTC support. You're making an assumption which is wrong. > > Another thing I forgot to mention. WebRTC is not a part of HTML5 yet. It > is a work in progress spec and implementations that could potentially be > a part of HTML5. and so the web-browser becomes the OS.
Re: WebRTC, google and firefox
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 04:46:04PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 10:25:31PM +0100, Pau wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have been searching but could not find information in this respect. > > > > I have 5.2 installed on a thinkpad x220s and, while ekiga seems to work > > fine, I have not found a way to make empathy or pidgin work with a gtalk > > account. > > The Pidgin port doesn't have VV support and last time I looked at this > it didn't seem to work too well or at all and seemed to be issues with > GStreamer and/or other components Pidgin relies upon for Jingle support. > > > Should not WebRTC, Google Hangout, work in firefox? > > HTML5 should work everywhere I thought? > > HTML5 entails a variety of different standards and support for those > standards in each respective browser. FF and Chromium on OpenBSD still > do not have WebRTC support. You're making an assumption which is wrong. Another thing I forgot to mention. WebRTC is not a part of HTML5 yet. It is a work in progress spec and implementations that could potentially be a part of HTML5. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: WebRTC, google and firefox
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 10:25:31PM +0100, Pau wrote: > Hi, > > I have been searching but could not find information in this respect. > > I have 5.2 installed on a thinkpad x220s and, while ekiga seems to work > fine, I have not found a way to make empathy or pidgin work with a gtalk > account. The Pidgin port doesn't have VV support and last time I looked at this it didn't seem to work too well or at all and seemed to be issues with GStreamer and/or other components Pidgin relies upon for Jingle support. > Should not WebRTC, Google Hangout, work in firefox? > HTML5 should work everywhere I thought? HTML5 entails a variety of different standards and support for those standards in each respective browser. FF and Chromium on OpenBSD still do not have WebRTC support. You're making an assumption which is wrong. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
