On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:50:10 +0200, Caleb Cushing
wrote:
so according to that you should see HTML5 WebM. Do you? I see HTML5
but no WebM which means it's using h.264. even if you append the
&webm=1 which I suspect means youtube is smart and knows to fall
back.
I checked and I was wrong, Ch
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> You probably misunderstand something. HTML5 is the new HTML version,
> the language in which websites (Youtube e.g.) are written, the language
> which provides the tag. WebM is the codec of the videos like
> MPEG, Ogg/Theora, etc.
>
no I unde
Am Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:49:50 -0400
schrieb Caleb Cushing :
> not in our stable build.
And why does it (Youtube) work with the current chromium from [extra]?
> http://www.permadi.com/blog/2010/05/sample-webm-video-2/ < that's
> supposed to be webm and the video that's on youtube should have an
>
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> WebM is already implemented in Chromium 5.
not in our stable build.
http://www.permadi.com/blog/2010/05/sample-webm-video-2/ < that's
supposed to be webm and the video that's on youtube should have an
webm and html5 badge... I just get the htm
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> And why are there free Linux versions of every anti-virus software, if
> Windows is their only serious market?
because they're primarily used for scanning email for virii in web
gateways. you'll probably find more 64-bit av's in enterprise
edi
Am Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:16:14 -0400
schrieb Caleb Cushing :
> I thought WebM wasn't queued up until Chrome 6? pretty sure it's only
> H264 in 5... but I could be wrong... I think even youtube says
> something like that.
WebM is already implemented in Chromium 5. Youtube's HTML5 version is
working
Am Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:26:57 -0400
schrieb Caleb Cushing :
> kde1,2,3 aren't maintained anymore this saying windows nt, 98, xp is
> just about the same. kde4 is very similar in how vista has gone into
> 7. don't confused unsupported with we released a new version and
> aren't supporting the previo
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Jeroen Op 't Eynde
wrote:
> Chrome 5
I thought WebM wasn't queued up until Chrome 6? pretty sure it's only
H264 in 5... but I could be wrong... I think even youtube says
something like that.
--
Caleb Cushing
http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:46:11 +0200, Jan de Groot
wrote:
I don't care much about performance, but what is irritating is that
whenever some website loads anything flash-related, my CPU gets
speedstepped to max frequency and my laptop fan prepares my laptop for a
takeoff. When you're on battery,
also has everyone forgotten this
http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/30/flash-player-to-come-bundled-with-google-chrome-new-browser-plugin-api-coming/
? if google wants flash dead so bad why bundle it? I suspect that's
why adobe has cancelled support for now. I bet they have to rewrite
parts of 64-bit fl
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Heiko Baums wrote:
>
> Let me think. I'm using open source (Linux) since many years now.
> Everything I needed was supported and maintained during all the years.
> If a tool isn't maintained anymore then there's a fork or a usually
> better alternative which is mai
Am Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:06:23 -0400
schrieb Caleb Cushing :
> right... as if open source never stops getting supported for long
> periods of time... synergy anyone? or that we're never used as a
> testbed *cough*kde 4.0*cough*.
Let me think. I'm using open source (Linux) since many years now.
Ever
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Philipp Überbacher
wrote:
> I have no idea, it was simply the latest ubuntu live CD, i386 I believe.
> I never claimed that it was scientific, just recent experience. I used a
> live CD for this because I didn't want to install flash, but now I
> couldn't install i
Excerpts from Caleb Cushing's message of 2010-06-17 11:28:48 +0200:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Philipp Überbacher
> wrote:
> > Flash or some players seem to still be buggy. I recently booted a live
> > CD to watch a long video, and at some point, out of the blue, it was
> > simply impossib
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Patrick Burroughs
wrote:
> I will admit, it's pretty low. My previous system was a 2GHz Athlon
> XP, and while Flash wasn't instant on there, and occasionally lagged,
> it worked. That died, and I haven't the means to replace it, so I've
> been using an old Dell La
On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 00:53 -0700, Patrick Burroughs wrote:
> Personally, if it wasn't for HTML5 I wouldn't be able to use YouTube.
> My laptop is ancient and decrepit, and cannot handle Flash on Linux,
> but the element works just fine, and loads as fast as I'm used
> to Flash video loading. Mayb
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 02:17, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Caleb Cushing
> wrote:
>> yeah having a quad core with 6G of ram takes care of just about any
>> system performance issues
>
> however I was using flash 10 on a much less beefy system not so long
> ago... and
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Philipp Überbacher
wrote:
> Flash or some players seem to still be buggy. I recently booted a live
> CD to watch a long video, and at some point, out of the blue, it was
> simply impossible to seek forward or backward. The Volume controls did
> nothing at all. Hurr
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> yeah having a quad core with 6G of ram takes care of just about any
> system performance issues
however I was using flash 10 on a much less beefy system not so long
ago... and didn't notice issues... so I'd be curious to know how low
of a sy
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:53 AM, Patrick Burroughs
wrote:
> Maybe there's a bit of a slowdown versus Flash
> if you have a cutting-edge system, but not everyone is in that
> situation.
yeah having a quad core with 6G of ram takes care of just about any
system performance issues (except nepomuk an
Excerpts from Caleb Cushing's message of 2010-06-17 04:16:04 +0200:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
> > I simply couldn't get the same elements with the same ease in time,
> > and thus failed to offer a presentation. They decided to stick with
> > Flash, but I kept the multime
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 19:16, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> as of right now I don't think is ready. however I'm all for
> many of the other improvements coming in html5 and I wish people would
> focus on rolling those out.
>
> [...]
>
> I tried html5 again on youtube, my video took several minutes to l
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
> I simply couldn't get the same elements with the same ease in time,
> and thus failed to offer a presentation. They decided to stick with
> Flash, but I kept the multimedia tools within the open-source domain
> for post-production (simply becaus
On 16 June 2010 09:21, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Alexander Lam wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Caleb Cushing
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM, C Anthony Risinger
>>> wrote:
let's just all chant together in hopes that
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Gaurish Sharma
wrote:
> Hi,
> People can try minitube[1] from AUR. Its based on QT and plays youtube
> without flash.
>
>
> [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34462
> Regards,
> Gaurish Sharma
> www.gaurishsharma.com
This is seriously awesome. Thanks.
Hi,
People can try minitube[1] from AUR. Its based on QT and plays youtube
without flash.
[1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34462
Regards,
Gaurish Sharma
www.gaurishsharma.com
Am Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:08:09 -0400
schrieb Caleb Cushing :
> with the exception of a few movie websites which were kinda
> entertaining I agree.
These movie websites are just annoying, too. Why can't the studios
present their informations about a movie in plain HTML with a trailer
presented with
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> I completely disagree. Flash can, of course, do much more than just
> video. But video currently is the most important feature. And I never
> understood why all those video portals thought they had to implement
> those videos in this proprietar
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Alexander Lam wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Caleb Cushing
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
>>> let's just all chant together in hopes that flash video will endure a
>>> quick, fiery demise, and webm/VP
Am Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:57:56 -0400
schrieb Caleb Cushing :
> meh! flash works... I don't think I've tried the webm stuff... but I
> did try the youtube html5 beta and it just didn't work well.
For me YouTube HTML5 is working much better than the Flash stuff
(despite the missing implementations of
Hello,
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
>> let's just all chant together in hopes that flash video will endure a
>> quick, fiery demise, and webm/VP8 will rise from the ashes to claim
>> it's place.
>
> meh! flash
Am Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:51:51 +0200
schrieb Heiko Baums :
> The HTML5 version of YouTube doesn't work for me, too.
For the time until webm is implemented in every browser and YouTube's
HTML5 version is the default also for the embedded videos, I found a
solution for Firefox for watching YouTube vi
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> let's just all chant together in hopes that flash video will endure a
> quick, fiery demise, and webm/VP8 will rise from the ashes to claim
> it's place.
meh! flash works... I don't think I've tried the webm stuff... but I
did try the y
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
wrote:
> 2010/6/15 Ng Oon-Ee :
>> On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 17:51 -0500, Muhammed Uluyol wrote:
>>> > HTML5 only works on Chrome/IE I think. Firefox devs decided they would
>>> > go with the Vorbis rather than x264 codecs, while youtube decided
2010/6/15 Ng Oon-Ee :
> On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 17:51 -0500, Muhammed Uluyol wrote:
>> > HTML5 only works on Chrome/IE I think. Firefox devs decided they would
>> > go with the Vorbis rather than x264 codecs, while youtube decided the
>> > other way round.
>> Youtube uses webm now, not h.264.
>>
>> F
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 17:51 -0500, Muhammed Uluyol wrote:
> > HTML5 only works on Chrome/IE I think. Firefox devs decided they would
> > go with the Vorbis rather than x264 codecs, while youtube decided the
> > other way round.
> Youtube uses webm now, not h.264.
>
> Firefox should have support in
> HTML5 only works on Chrome/IE I think. Firefox devs decided they would
> go with the Vorbis rather than x264 codecs, while youtube decided the
> other way round.
Youtube uses webm now, not h.264.
Firefox should have support in their nightly builds.
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 23:51 +0200, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:09:40 +0300
> schrieb Ionuț Bîru :
>
> > lightspark
>
> Lightspark can't play YouTube videos and Samorost 1 and 2 (from The
> Humble Indie Bundle) and it needs pulseaudio (yet another one of those
> senseless, resource
Am Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:09:40 +0300
schrieb Ionuț Bîru :
> lightspark
Lightspark can't play YouTube videos and Samorost 1 and 2 (from The
Humble Indie Bundle) and it needs pulseaudio (yet another one of those
senseless, resource-wasting daemons).
YouTube and Samorost 1 and 2 are the only reasons
On 06/15/2010 10:09 PM, Christoffer Hirth wrote:
> ti., 15.06.2010 kl. 16.04 -0500, skrev C Anthony Risinger:
>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ray Kohler wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma
>>> wrote:
Hi,
since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Christoffer Hirth wrote:
> ti., 15.06.2010 kl. 16.04 -0500, skrev C Anthony Risinger:
>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ray Kohler wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >> since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Al
ti., 15.06.2010 kl. 16.04 -0500, skrev C Anthony Risinger:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ray Kohler wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma
> > wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users?
> >
> > - keep it and use Flashblock addon (
On 06/16/2010 12:04 AM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ray Kohler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma
wrote:
Hi,
since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users?
- keep it and use Flashblock addon (firefox)
- use Gnash or other
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ray Kohler wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users?
>
> - keep it and use Flashblock addon (firefox)
> - use Gnash or other open-source version (not very useful)
> -
Thanks.
I went for
* use 32-bit plugin with nspluginwrapper
All you need to do is install nspluginwrapper-flash package from AUR.
maybe this package can be Pushed in repos and carried as replacement
for flashplugin 64bit
[1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=6232
Can this package be i
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 04:55:57PM -0400, Ray Kohler wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users?
>
> - keep it and use Flashblock addon (firefox)
> - use Gnash or other open-source version (not very
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma
wrote:
> Hi,
> since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users?
- keep it and use Flashblock addon (firefox)
- use Gnash or other open-source version (not very useful)
- use 32-bit plugin with nspluginwrapper
- use 32-bit plugin with
Hi,
since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users?
Regards,
Gaurish Sharma
www.gaurishsharma.com
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> I'll keep this installed despite the security problem. Combined with
> flashblock, I can at least watch youtube this way. Force-removing it by
> a dummy update is something I don't want.
Same here. I block all plugins and js by default any
On Tue 15 Jun 2010 18:23 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 15.06.2010 18:22, schrieb Andreas Radke:
> > Am Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:12:38 +0300
> > schrieb Ionuț Bîru :
> >> the current x86_64 version of flashplugin has security problems and
> >> adobe dropped/temporally closed x86_64 releases.
> >>
>
50 matches
Mail list logo
