Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

blog.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 183 posts

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#21

Post by jonknee »

dbaupp wrote: post #12

I feel like DataChannels are the best part of the WebRTC standard (or would be, if they were usable): a true p2p connection allowing transfer of arbitrary data without plugins or anything. This gives multiplayer games, file transfers, realtime chat and collaborative editors (let your imagination run wild...) and the only thing a server is required for is establishing the connection (and saving state). This functional…

Hopefully DataConnections will also be used for video an audio so that encrypted connections can be used.

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#22

Post by taeric »

I have a terrible confession to make. I can't bring myself to be too excited about this, yet. I can already make a video chat from my Linux box running either Firefox or Chrome to my mother running IE. What, exactly, are the benefits of this?

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#23

Post by timdorr »

Jabbles wrote: post #18

Note that Chrome (or the application) chooses to reverse the self-view so that it acts like a mirror, whereas Firefox (or its application) chooses to display what the other person sees . It's a hard choice to make.

Actually, not really. It's all HTML 5 video elements on the page, so this is all you need:

    .mirrored { transform: scaleX(-1); }
And you can make a button to add/remove that class as needed.

However, I do hope the implementations are consistent as to which way it flips the video.

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#24

Post by bajsejohannes »

timdorr wrote: post #23
Jabbles wrote: post #18

Note that Chrome (or the application) chooses to reverse the self-view so that it acts like a mirror, whereas Firefox (or its application) chooses to display what the other person sees . It's a hard choice to make.

Actually, not really. It's all HTML 5 video elements on the page, so this is all you need: .mirrored { transform: scaleX(-1); } And you can make a button to add/remove that class as needed. However, I do hope the implementations are consistent as to which way it flips the video.

Changing it is easy. Adding options is an easy way to avoid choices.

But Jabbles' point still remains: It's a hard choice to make.

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#25

Post by TylerE »

dbaupp wrote: post #12

I feel like DataChannels are the best part of the WebRTC standard (or would be, if they were usable): a true p2p connection allowing transfer of arbitrary data without plugins or anything. This gives multiplayer games, file transfers, realtime chat and collaborative editors (let your imagination run wild...) and the only thing a server is required for is establishing the connection (and saving state). This functional…

What sort of security is in place - e.g. what's stopping a pop-up ad from logging keystrokes and sending them to a remote endpoint?

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#26

Post by untog »

bajsejohannes wrote: post #24
timdorr wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, not really. It's all HTML 5 video elements on the page, so this is all you need: .mirrored { transform: scaleX(-1); } And you can make a button to add/remove that class as needed. However, I do hope the implementations are consistent as to which way it flips the video.

Changing it is easy. Adding options is an easy way to avoid choices. But Jabbles' point still remains: It's a hard choice to make.

I don't think it's a hard choice for the browser to make- send the data as it is captured by the camera. How that is displayed is something else, but as timdorr demonstrates, it's not difficult to toggle.

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#27

Post by temp453463343 »

IgorPartola wrote: post #3

Imagine how much more awesome this will be when we also have IPv6. We will have no more need for things like ICE [1], just direct point to point communication. Oh, and multicast for giant video chat sessions. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_Connectivity_Establ...

That's never going to happen b/c there is too much legacy infrastructure and the benefit is marginal.

All current home routers are configured to do NAT, so you're not going to be able to have a Skype 2.0 be P2P b/c then you'd need to explain to millions of people how to reconfigure their routers.

Also P2P opens a whole new can of worms when it comes to security.

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#28

Post by __alexs »

0x0 wrote: post #11
loeg wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multicast on the internet is a nice dream. Will it actually happen with IPv6? My understanding is there is a barrier to adoption ­— basically all routers involved need to be aware of the multicast initiation/join/leave protocol, and basically, there's a bunch of old hardware/software out there that isn't aware. Is all IPv6-capable hardware capable of this (given that IPv6 came out in ... 1998)?

I had the impression that the biggest hurdle for multicast to happen on the internet is the insane memory requirements for routers to track all the multicast memberships (as well as being extremely open for abuse -- imagine one client subscribing to every multicast stream out there and never leaving, that would flood the incoming pipes for that ISP)

IPv6 is also pretty much a requirement due to the whole multicast MAC address collision thing I believe.

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#30

Post by phowat »

comex wrote: post #20
dbaupp wrote: post #12

I feel like DataChannels are the best part of the WebRTC standard (or would be, if they were usable): a true p2p connection allowing transfer of arbitrary data without plugins or anything. This gives multiplayer games, file transfers, realtime chat and collaborative editors (let your imagination run wild...) and the only thing a server is required for is establishing the connection (and saving state). This functional…

Unfortunately, if this page is accurate, DataChannels don't really work yet: http://www.webrtc.org/chrome#TOC-Data-Channels- A shame, because I have a use in mind for them. :)

It works on some alpha release of both Firefox and Chrome. There are already some file transfer apps if you're curious, although I haven't tested myself: https://github.com/lindstroem/FileTransfer and https://github.com/peer5/sharefest . Also, the folks from easyrtc ( https://github.com/priologic/easyrtc ) have already started working on adding DataChannels to their library.
Post reply on HN