31–40 of 183 posts
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?
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?
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.
Most of it can be worked around, but for a web developer, there's still a lot of wiring that has to get untangled for it all to work as seamlessly as it appears in the video demos.
Definitely some cool technology, though.
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.
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?
No third party plugin is required to be installed.
I think I would be more excited if this were distinct plugins running in the respective browsers. Would be much more indicative of a truly free environment, instead of just two of the top contestants doing something.
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)
As for the abusive client, I say if the ISP has any sense of self preservation, they should be interested to police this themselves. For example, knowing how much bandwidth the client is paying for, they could refuse additional or even cut existing memberships of that client once that limit is reached.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Looks neat. One thing I wonder about tech' like this, is that it is encrypted from you to the service, but there is no assurance of privacy. Someone who runs a service like this can easy drop in on your calls and ease-drop. Which is a legitimate concern if someone wanted to use this either in a corporate environment or for very private calling (e.g. husband and wife, doctor and patient, etc). No current video tech' r…
Looks neat. One thing I wonder about tech' like this, is that it is encrypted from you to the service, but there is no assurance of privacy. Someone who runs a service like this can easy drop in on your calls and ease-drop. Which is a legitimate concern if someone wanted to use this either in a corporate environment or for very private calling (e.g. husband and wife, doctor and patient, etc). No current video tech' r…
My understanding is that it's possible to not have a 'service' and instead form connections from one person directly to another. That decentralization would be a privacy boon.