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

41–50 of 183 posts

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#41

Post by tracker1 »

phowat wrote: post #30
comex wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A bit-torrent like client in the native browser would be interesting... wonder where Opera is on this one.

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#42

Post by hayksaakian »

taeric wrote: post #36
macleanjr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No third party plugin is required to be installed.

I get that, though I do not necessarily get what makes that so awesome. Essentially, my browser is already a third party plugin to my computer. 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.

It's so that if you tell your mother to get google chrome, she does not also have to get a separate plugin.

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#44

Post by untog »

criley wrote: post #38
untog wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a hard choice for the human who has to pick one or the other and justify that decision.

In what way? The developer should have no problem justifying the decision. "It's what the camera sensor sees".

I absolutely understand the application in webchat and why you would want it to be mirrored at a page level, but I'm at a loss to understand why the browser implementation would try to reflect that.

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#45

Post by wmf »

Ironlink wrote: post #37
0x0 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

While I don't know anything about how multicast is specified, I would certainly hope that it is possible to implement in such a way that each router only needs to track the memberships of it's direct neighbors. They would then themselves advertise that membership in order to serve their neighbor's request. As for the abusive client, I say if the ISP has any sense of self preservation, they should be interested to pol…

The problem is that a router's direct neighbors may be subscribed to millions of multicast groups and nobody has enough TCAM to track those memberships.

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#46

Post by taeric »

hayksaakian wrote: post #42
taeric wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that, though I do not necessarily get what makes that so awesome. Essentially, my browser is already a third party plugin to my computer. 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.

It's so that if you tell your mother to get google chrome, she does not also have to get a separate plugin.

You aren't exactly making this sound more free. I would honestly prefer it if I could just buy her a large TV and we could setup video calls with it. (They already have cameras built in nowdays.) Hell, why stop at the TV. Her phone likely has all that is needed for this. Does this go any further to making that happen?

I guess I can see how it does. I mean, the idea is that this protocol can be used to communicate between two vendors. But, that can already be done. It is done, on a regular basis. What, exactly, makes this special?

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#48

Post by TylerE »

dbaupp wrote: post #32
TylerE wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is possible with current technology: $(document).keypress(sendKeypressInfo)

Won't the Same Origin Policy limit the exposure via ajax?

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#49

Post by account_taken »

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…

Yeah, let's start calling it web 4.0 now. Truly exciting stuff.

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#50

Post by mweibel »

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.

The last time I tried this it also flipped the controls. Is this still the case?
Post reply on HN