771–780 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netflix works with EME on Chrome and Firefox. Netflix doesn't block Linux users. They just don't provide customer support for troubleshooting on Linux.
> Netflix doesn't block Linux users. They don't block (anymore) they just offer a degraded experience, 720p resolution only. Piracy still offers a superior product.
What people don't get is that EME sets a strange precedent in the history of HTML. Web browsers have always been very hackable. HTTP meant you could always look at the traffic being exchanged. And because there was little point in obscuring anything, web browsers allowed you to look into and modify everything: - view/modify document source - view/modify DOM - debug script - and so on This is how CSS was defined too.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HTML have always had plugins too... this ends that. Think of EME as a slightly better sandboxed plugin with a single very small purposes... As oppose to the security horrors from Flash
If there aren't already enterprise software firms investigating how to offer their SuperWidgetron 10000 HR system through EME in the browser, I will eat my hat. The single very small purpose will soon enough be worked around, messed with and extended to do more than it was ever "supposed" to - just look at JavaScript.
And the W3C just standardized a tool to support the DCMA...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netflix works with EME on Chrome and Firefox. Netflix doesn't block Linux users. They just don't provide customer support for troubleshooting on Linux.
> Netflix doesn't block Linux users. They don't block (anymore) they just offer a degraded experience, 720p resolution only. Piracy still offers a superior product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The web has been engineered to a complexity level so grossly obscene that it is all but impossible for independent developers to produce fully independent web browsers anymore. You would need hundreds of millions of dollars in capital and strong leadership to produce a browser that would be successful in today's world. I could dedicate the rest of my life working 100 hours a week on a browser, and I would die before…
We should all move back to gopher. Seriously.
[edit] So I've read the RFC (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1436) looks like it should be fairly simple, we can run gopher servers on both user machine and remote servers, so I can store my personal details locally, then give permission to other remote gopher servers to access that in a granular manner, third parties can operate gopher servers I can interface with to access 'cloud' style computing, storage, search, and manage contacts/calendars, sorted :)
[edit 2] Looks like Gopher has a pulse, you can access around 4.9 million unique 'files' using an HTML>Gopher tool run on this site http://gopher.floodgap.com/gopher/ here's a nice Ars write up https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/11/the-web-may-have...
[edit 3] My build of firefox does not seem to have Gopher support, it recognises the link (chrome just does nothing), but asks you for a local application to fulfil the request :( [edit 4] It's now a plugin for firefox, https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/overbiteff/
Basically, unless you are writing a browser with decent marketshare, you defacto have no voice in making the standards. Basically, the only voices that matter are Mozilla (Firefox), Apple (Safari), Google(Chrome), and Microsoft (Edge/Explorer). Despite what any standard says, web developers are going to go by the behavior of the browsers do. The only company on the list of browser makers that really has any desire to…
This is simply not true. Netflix's entire business model is based around one thing: video content delivery. It started with DVDs in red envelopes, and has evolved to be app-based streaming now. Neither of these two things has any relevance to web browsers.
Netflix's wish to be able to provide its content on as many platforms as possible for the lowest cost? Yes, that would make a lot more sense for why they are pushing this. Not an enticing enough argument for destroying web browser-based DRMs imo.
Basically, unless you are writing a browser with decent marketshare, you defacto have no voice in making the standards. Basically, the only voices that matter are Mozilla (Firefox), Apple (Safari), Google(Chrome), and Microsoft (Edge/Explorer). Despite what any standard says, web developers are going to go by the behavior of the browsers do. The only company on the list of browser makers that really has any desire to…
The web has been engineered to a complexity level so grossly obscene that it is all but impossible for independent developers to produce fully independent web browsers anymore. You would need hundreds of millions of dollars in capital and strong leadership to produce a browser that would be successful in today's world. I could dedicate the rest of my life working 100 hours a week on a browser, and I would die before…
1. Assume we will eventually converge to a virtual machine target like WASM. Thus, eventually, browsers will only have to implement the low-level instructions of WASM, which will make building a browser much simpler. Note that as a side-effect, browsers may also become more secure.
2. Start with a working webbrowser, like Firefox or Chromium.
3. Step by step, move functionality from the browser into the browser's user-space. Eventually, JavaScript and the rendering of CSS and HTML will run in the browser's user-space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The fear is that this makes it far too easy to use DRM for webpage owners. Previously, you had to pull in a slow-ass Flash-plugin or similar, which was very much known to bring all kinds of security issues. "Previously" in this case would have been four years ago , would it not? Ever since then, EME has already been reality. If EME has been reality and commonplace since then, what does this W3C decision really chan…
> "Previously" in this case would have been four years ago, would it not? Ever since then, EME has already been reality. If EME has been reality and commonplace since then, what does this W3C decision really change? There is no FUD here. The W3C should not be involved in standardizing DRM API. If browsers want to implement DRM it is their problems. Everybody dropped the ball here. Mozilla, the W3C ... they could have…
The FUD here is that the implication is that now text and images will be DRM'ed. EME only allows DRM'ing video and audio. Facts matter, and making stuff up to 'support' the point does not help. His post literally starts with "the fear is..." and then provides no facts to support it.
It may be so that they signed the death of the open web. But it seems to me that if this is your definition of the death of the open web, the open web has been dead since the broad support and use of the or tags with RealPlayer, Flash and Silverlight - and very dead since broad adoption of EME before the W3C had any standards on it. Signing that death after all this time does not add anything except for some symbolism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And what's your solution (proposal) for the problem they faced? Make the zero-tolerance for DRM a unique selling point of Firefox.
Firefox is, AFAIK, the only browser vendor that decouples the EME module from the browser, allowing the browser to be downloaded without any DRM support at all. See the various "EME-free" directories here: http://download.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/releases/55.0/
In summary, if you already have Firefox, you don't need to go download a separate build to opt out of DRM. You can just uncheck the "Play DRM-controlled content" checkbox in the prefs to get to the same configuration.