Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Labs Add-On Provides Video and Audio Recording From the Browser

Posted by timothy on from the straightforward-enough dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla Labs is working on an experimental add-on which enables video and audio recording in the browser. Anant Narayanan writes on the Mozilla Labs blog, 'The Rainbow add-on for Firefox is an early developer prototype that enables web developers to access local video and audio recording capabilities using just a few lines of JavaScript. The add-on generates files encoded in open formats: Theora (for video) and Vorbis (for audio) in an Ogg container. The resulting files are accessible in DOM using HTML5 File APIs, which may be used to upload them to a server.' Support for live streaming and WebM is planned for a future version of the add-on."

101 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    n/t

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      We've already got enough of that kind of malware - Flash already gives access to the microphone and webcam.

    2. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by Caerdwyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The sins of Flash are not forgiven by the sins of HTML5.

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    3. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by Mitchell314 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're one of those damn HTML5 lubbers, aren't you? \~

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    4. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by Caerdwyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're one of those damn HTML5 lubbers, aren't you? \~

      Don't know yet, there's nothing to lub. Not much available in the real world to try with HTML5... ask again in two years. The lub may be hawt, or it may be like lub with a drunken frat boy (lots of tears and shortcomings and stains that won't wash out).

      But the point stands: whether HTML5 is good or bad is pretty much irrelevant to the inarguable fact that Flash is a security mess. Even if HTML5 turns out to be even worse, that doesn't make the current state of affairs with Flash acceptable. Adobe needs to get its act together, regardless of their competition's CERT alert count. The only bug counts their dev team should care about are their own.

      If a Chevy catches fire 20% of the time when you start it, and a Chrysler catches fire 10% of the time when you start it, that still doesn't make Chrysler OK or safe.

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    5. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Funny

      A bit scary, indeed, but a bit of duct tape over the camera lens is always safest. Not that that will stop anyone hearing your moans... ;-P

    6. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

      Yes, wait a couple years - not only will html 5 replace flash, but I'm hoping that we'll be able to do away with the notion of 'browser plugin' altogether. Why not have one application/protocol that can handle everything today's browser and all its plugins do, a browser that can access/transfer local files? Yep, there's quite a few security/platform issues to sort out there, but the work would be much more clear-cut if that were the ultimate goal.

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    7. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uhhh...why EXACTLY would you want that? Now I know why Steve Jobs wants that, he has been in a pissed off at Adobe for awhile and doesn't care if H.264 is a patent troll's wet dream, because he holds some of the patents. But why would YOU or for that matter ME want this? We have enough trouble just getting all the major browsers to render the exact same page the same way, not to mention dealing with all the "JavaScript malware o' the day" holes that keep popping up, but why would you want to tie all this multimedia junk into your browser?

      You see the nice part about plugins is you don't have to have them if you don't want to, and even if you do it is pretty trivial to turn them off on a per site basis with something like ABP & NS. And bitch all you want about Flash, but you can drop pretty much ANY format into a flash container, including free ones like VP6 and WebM, while all I've seen pushed for HTML V5 is H.264, probably the most horribly patented minefield in the history of software patents. Also Adobe doesn't care if you package their stuff with FOSS, or even try to cook up something like Gnash, whereas MPEGLA has made it pretty clear you ship something with H.264 you better get out your checkbook, pretty much killing FOSS support. What good is HTML V5 if the websites can't be supported out of the box by anyone but the big three of Google, MSFT, and Apple?

      I think the main complaint is driven by from what I've heard is shitty support for flash on FOSS and Apple devices, but whereas Apple can afford to cut a check to MPEGLA and just pass the costs to users, as can MSFT I really don't see the advantage of switching one walled garden for the other. Now as far as performance all I can comment on is the Windows versions of flash, which currently play nicely even on this 1.8GHz Sempron, but personally I'd rather see projects like Gnash take off and then if Adobe don't get their code together maybe transition the web to something anybody can use like WebM. But considering how long it has taken us to get THIS far I don't know if tying all the video to the browser, especially using a format so patent encumbered is the right way to go. Am I wrong? Why would you prefer HTML V5? What are the real world (not "it'll be better sometime later") advantages and disadvantages of one VS the other? I really would like to know.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    8. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by prionic6 · · Score: 1

      My first thought exactly.

      There is no way this could go wrong!

    9. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      About 5 years ago maybe. No-one can access files/hardware on your PC, in flash, without your permission. They can store cookies, just like the browser, but probably more securely than browser cookies.

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    10. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Browsers already access and transfer local files. And plugins will always be required, because you can't bundle every little format viewer in-browser; I wouldn't want Google Earth support embedded in my browser, for example.

      I'm not sure what that end-goal you're thinking about.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    11. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

      I wasn't very precise, was I? By 'file transfer' I mean having the same drag and drop functionality we enjoy in modern finders and applications (rather than the browser file-by-file manual selection we have to deal with today).

      I do understand that not everyone wants to read pdf's in their browser, but let's at least cover the 'most common' basics - and perhaps have their availability controllable through the browser preferences. Yes, 'less common' file formats should remain plugin-dependable. I also think that a browser should be capable of using our hardware to its fullest extent (should we so choose to allow it to do so).

      Flash is a good example of superseded plugin 'technology' - what is it? It's basically a proprietary set of almost-javascript object-(meaning 'thing')-manipulating code language that dates from an era where javascript wasn't capable of such feats. That time is long gone, and I think the people developing HTML5 understand this.

      I also understand that there are quite a few security problems to solve before any of the above can happen. But shouldn't we already be preparing for the eventuality that our web-connected computers will one day be capable of this?

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    12. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by icebraining · · Score: 1

      But in the other post you talked about it as a distant goal, while it's already done or close.

      Firefox 3.6 and Chrome have had drag and drop for months now.

      Support for video, audio and PDFs (Chrome only) is already there or close.

      I also understand that there are quite a few security problems to solve before any of the above can happen. But shouldn't we already be preparing for the eventuality that our web-connected computers will one day be capable of this?

      But that's the thing: it's not "one day", it's now or a few months from now. The browsers already do this, at least in their betas. Now, how long 'till every browser supports them (*cof* IE *cof*) and web developers start using those features, that could take a while.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    13. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      Your beef seems to be with H.264, not a plugin-less web experience

    14. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by tepples · · Score: 1

      Also Adobe doesn't care if you package their stuff with FOSS, or even try to cook up something like Gnash

      Until two and a half years ago, Adobe did care. Around that time (keywords: Open Screen Project), Adobe dropped long-standing contractual restrictions on use of the SWF spec, but by then, Flash Player already had a huge head start over Gnash. And what video codecs does Gnash support?

    15. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      But the point stands: whether HTML5 is good or bad is pretty much irrelevant to the inarguable fact that Flash is a security mess. Even if HTML5 turns out to be even worse, that doesn't make the current state of affairs with Flash acceptable. Adobe needs to get its act together, regardless of their competition's CERT alert count. The only bug counts their dev team should care about are their own.

      Except that with HTML5, the security mess isn't as big because browsers are updated far more frequently by many people. Adobe is slow to adapt and their security patches are even slower to come out. Whereas HTML5 security issues can be fixed quickly because there are so many browsers out there.

      Say something hits HTML5. Firefox comes out with a patch that resolves it, so people use Firefox temporarily while Apple (Safari), Opera, Microsoft, Google fix the bug as well. Or maybe Google finds and fixes the bug and releases a new Chrome. We can all move over temporarily. Either way, between Mozilla and Google, one of them will have the issue fixed first. And maybe Apple and Microsoft could surprise us by having a timely patch as well.

      But a flash security hole? Well, we have to wait until Adobe decides to fix it. Like that one they announced yesterday.

      It's the same on smartphones - the iPhone has to wait for Apple to release an update to fix any browser flaws, ditto Microsoft. Android users can choose among the millions of other web browsers (like Firefox!).

      Anyhow, hopefully the Mozilla guys are smart enough to put in a little drop-down alert (not a popup) when some script wants access to the camera/microphone. Popups don't work (they'll be dismissed without reading), but a drop down notice saying the page wants access to camera/microphone that has to be explicitly approved would be preferable. (Like the "do you want to save your password" prompt - it won't save unless you click OK, just like this won't activate the camera/microphone without permission either).

    16. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      But you don't get one without the other, sorry. If you want a "plugin-less web experience" as you put it you have to have a codec and container for the video/audio and the two Steves (Ballmer and Jobs) have spoken and it shall be H.264. If you have ever looked at H.264 it is the MOAB of patent minefields, with well over 2000 patents related to it. And MPEG-LA has made it clear you ship, you cut a check period. This doesn't affect the two Steves, because they'll pass costs onto their customers while at the same time assuring lock in for themselves. And of course since they both on some of the H.264 patents some of the money they spend on licenses comes back to them anyway.

      So my point still stands, which you didn't answer: what EXACTLY is the advantages of going to HTML V5, especially when it will be tied to the worst patent minefield in history? You can ship Adobe with ANY OS, FOSS or proprietary, they do not care. You can also build support for flash in ANY product, again FOSS or proprietary, and Adobe don't care. MPEG-LA has made it clear they DO care, and you WILL cut a check or get the trollhammer of death dropped upon thee in court. So why should we make things worse for us and better for the two Steves?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    17. Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. by toriver · · Score: 1

      Given that Flash is often used as a container for H.264 video, and HTML 5 video can use other codecs, I say you are delusional.

  2. so...uh... by blair1q · · Score: 1

    this thing can turn on my webcam and upload the vids just because i clicked on a link?

    let me ask, how do i NEVER get this add-on?

    1. Re:so...uh... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      let me ask, how do i NEVER get this add-on?

      Simple: By not installing it.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:so...uh... by CannonballHead · · Score: 5, Funny

      how do i NEVER get this add-on?

      Use IE 6. ;)

    3. Re:so...uh... by Cougar+Town · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mozilla didn't get Firefox where it is by being morons. Just the fact that it's Mozilla tells me that if this is ever an official release, it's going to have some kind of user confirmation before allowing access to these things (if it doesn't already). The backlash would be too great if there wasn't, and this is just common sense for Mozilla. Bugs could show up that might allow some kind of malware to do it, but it's crazy to think that Mozilla would knowingly allow any site to just access your camera and mic without permission if this was meant to be widely used by regular people.

    4. Re:so...uh... by owlnation · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mozilla didn't get Firefox where it is by being morons.

      Hmmm... Mozilla didn't get Firefox from 0.0 - 2.0 by being morons. However, there's certainly some evidence of moronic behavior from 2.0 onwards. Their focus seems to have changed from usability to adding more and more features. And that's moronic, because that's exactly what killed Netscape.

      Only a moron would repeat history that way. Yet that does appear to be what they are doing.

    5. Re:so...uh... by arielCo · · Score: 2, Informative

      this thing can turn on my webcam and upload the vids just because i clicked on a link?

      let me ask, how do i NEVER get this add-on?

      Got Flash? Yes it can, and guess what: there are settings for that, per site and global.

      Maybe the good boys at Mozilla thought of that too.

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    6. Re:so...uh... by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're doing that because you're delusional. Sort of like how the sky is now red and Safari doesn't suck balls on Windows.

      Firefox is much more usable now than it was when I first started using it back when it was alpha and wasn't Firefox. 3.x and 4.x are continuing the evolution. It's hard for me to believe that a bunch of "moron" as you put it put together the second most popular browser. Even more shocking is that a bunch of morons are now leading the browser market.

    7. Re:so...uh... by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Distinguish "add-on" from the browser itself. Extensions make FF useful. No likee, no installee, no problem.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    8. Re:so...uh... by hitmark · · Score: 1

      and if not, there is always noscript (and removable camera).

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    9. Re:so...uh... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Back when Firefox was alpha and called Phoenix, my preferred browser was its ancestor, the original Mozilla. If you did your own builds and left out Communicator and all the other stuff that made it huge and unwieldy, it kicked Phoenix' butt in every way.

      Eventually, of course, by the time support for Mozilla fell away, the (by then) bulkier Firefox was well and truly established.

    10. Re:so...uh... by Angst+Badger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's hard for me to believe that a bunch of "moron" as you put it put together the second most popular browser. Even more shocking is that a bunch of morons are now leading the browser market.

      Popularity does not equal intelligence. Vastly more people are avid followers of professional wrestling than any branch of the sciences. While the OP rather overstates his point, yours has no merit at all.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    11. Re:so...uh... by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      You'd most likely be clicking the allow button at the top of your page similar to the javascript location API.

    12. Re:so...uh... by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Hate to say it, but Mozilla was not the original. There was a little program written by a student at UIUC named Marc called Mosaic, and it was AWESOME! With the possible exception of Cyberdog, that was the best browser ever.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    13. Re:so...uh... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Every program evolves until it can send email. Can Firefox do that yet?

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    14. Re:so...uh... by Hortensia+Patel · · Score: 1

      Paint or tape over the webcam lens. It's the only way to be sure.

    15. Re:so...uh... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      ...actually, Mozilla was about adding more features from day one.
      Then someone got really pissed off about that, took Mozilla base, removed all the cruft and forked off Phoenix, which was Mozilla minus all the "features".
      Then, when Mozilla began to die away and Phoenix began gaining popularity, Mozilla jumped the ship and joined the Phoenix team (and renamed it to Firefox later).
      Then they began doing to Firefox what they used to do to Mozilla, and what caused people to abandon Mozilla in favor of Firefox.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    16. Re:so...uh... by maxume · · Score: 1

      The goal of Pheonix was always to make a user oriented browser, rather than a developer catchall.

      That the first step in doing that was to remove a bunch of stuff has caused endless confusion.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    17. Re:so...uh... by tepples · · Score: 1

      Every program evolves until it can send email. Can Firefox do that yet?

      Do Hotmail and Gmail count?

    18. Re:so...uh... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      And now the primary problem / most frequent complaint about Firefox is...?

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    19. Re:so...uh... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      And now the primary problem / most frequent complaint about Firefox is...?

      Most common complaints I've heard recently with regards to Firefox: It works in Firefox, but won't work in opera/safari!!!

      (Javascript related)

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    20. Re:so...uh... by treeves · · Score: 1

      I remember NCSA Mosaic. Ran it on my Mac back in the day, along with Gopher and Eudora. Don't remember watching too many videos with Mosaic though.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    21. Re:so...uh... by Cougar+Town · · Score: 1

      Oh I remember those days. Dialing up using MacSLIP or InterSLIP (not even PPP!), searching Gopher... using Mosaic (and later, Netscape 1.0), Eudora for mail...

      In some ways, I'm glad we're far beyond all that now. In other ways, I wish we'd stayed there.

    22. Re:so...uh... by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Remember when Bill Gates said the Internet was a fad and that's why it took them so long to introduce dial-up TCP/IP into Windows? I remember helping customers configure Chameleon and Winsock, among others.

      And while the Mac's built-in stuff came faster, it was still annoying; I remember having to reboot every time you changed a networking setting. Those were the days.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
  3. Recording Indicator by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd like the OS to have a reliable (hard to crack) indicator to the user showing whenever any mic or camera HW is being accessed, like a red light in the Desktop manager display, and an easily readable display of the XML log of accesses.

    As it is I put metal foil tape over them now, disconnecting them physically when I can, and rely on external camera/mic peripherals that I plug in on demand.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Recording Indicator by vigmeister · · Score: 1

      As it is I put metal foil tape over them now

      So no one finds out about your Tihande-1A which is capable of 2.5 petafaps?

      Cheers!

      --
      Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
    2. Re:Recording Indicator by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      I have a simpler solution: no camera and no microphone

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Recording Indicator by Slutticus · · Score: 1

      OS X has this.... and unfortunately has alerted my wife to many failed attempts to misuse my Macbook pro web cam.

    4. Re:Recording Indicator by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Screw a red light in the desktop manager display. Attach a red LED directly to the enable pin of the camera IC, so that it's physically impossible to turn on the camera without showing the light unless the LED burns out or is removed.

      Camera circuitry not have a simple enable pin? Don't design in that camera.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    5. Re:Recording Indicator by moonbender · · Score: 1

      My Webcam also has an LED that turns on whenever the camera is accessed. Except, in Linux it acts the opposite way. Oops. I wouldn't trust those LEDs too much.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    6. Re:Recording Indicator by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I've got a better solution, a bit of masking tape over the camera any time that you don't want to be caught on camera. It's not perfect, but they can't see anything.

    7. Re:Recording Indicator by hitmark · · Score: 1

      or physical switches on the wires.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    8. Re:Recording Indicator by hitmark · · Score: 1

      some designs have a physical cover for the lens.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    9. Re:Recording Indicator by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      There's a little LED on most webcams that lights up when it's in use.

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    10. Re:Recording Indicator by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      Strange, as on my main machine, it always act the same (XP/Leopard/Kubuntu) ON=LED ON OFF=LED OFF

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    11. Re:Recording Indicator by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Dude, what exactly is it that you do or say in front of your computer that you think *anybody* would care about? No, fappage does not count.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    12. Re:Recording Indicator by sempir · · Score: 1

      I tried to screw a red light into my desktop and all I got was a buggered up screen!

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    13. Re:Recording Indicator by icebraining · · Score: 1

      That's because it's a software controlled LED, which is stupid. My HP has a LED electrically connected to the webcam, so there's no way in software to disable it, even if you have root privileges.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    14. Re:Recording Indicator by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      My private life, you slave.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    15. Re:Recording Indicator by tepples · · Score: 1

      All camera circuitry has a simple enable pin. In fact all circuitry has a simple enable pin. It's called the power pin..

      And watch the camera power be turned on in a "standby" mode even when the camera isn't taking pictures, making the indicator useless.

    16. Re:Recording Indicator by tepples · · Score: 1

      Camera circuitry not have a simple enable pin? Don't design in that camera.

      Home users don't have power to redesign the camera.

    17. Re:Recording Indicator by moonbender · · Score: 1

      How do you know that it's electrically connected?

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    18. Re:Recording Indicator by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Sure, reading the driver might work. The code that turns off the LED could still be hidden in the device's firmware, though. The path /sys/class/leds does not exist when I connect my USB webcam with its apparently software-controlled LED.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    19. Re:Recording Indicator by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Laptop maker does. That's who I'm talking about.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    20. Re:Recording Indicator by tepples · · Score: 1

      Laptop makers choose the lowest bidder. The camera from the lowest bidder takes an enable command, not an enable pin. Home users don't have power to force laptop makers to choose otherwise.

  4. 1984 redux by woboyle · · Score: 1

    They should call it the "Big Brother" plug-in...

    --
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
  5. So what they're saying is... by euroq · · Score: 4, Funny

    So what they're saying is that the hackers will take your bank account credentials, AND your picture so they can print the credit card with it! Sweet, where do I sign up?

    --
    Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  6. In Soviet Russia... by Penguinshit · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... Web browses YOU!

    (c'mon: _somebody_ has to post this)

    --

    I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia... by TheyTookOurJobs · · Score: 1, Funny

      BAD NO!

    2. Re:In Soviet Russia... by tenco · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, the web taps you!

  7. Four words: Lower Merion School District by westlake · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Mozilla didn't get Firefox where it is by being morons. Just the fact that it's Mozilla tells me that if this is ever an official release, it's going to have some kind of user confirmation before allowing access to these things (if it doesn't already).

    If it does, I see no evidence for it.

    The potential for abuse here is enormous.

    The user confirmation had damn well better be solid. Particularly when a minor is likely to be at the keyboard.

    It is not necessarilly a good idea to do everything in the browser.

    The added step of opening an external app - particularly an app which enforces explict restrictions on access - is, I think, often the better solution.

    1. Re: Four words: Lower Merion School District by catbutt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's absurd to think that they would allow any web page to capture video or audio without having a rock solid way of making sure the user actually wants to do that. I mean, browsers have had a "file upload" widget since practically day one. But never did they allow javascript to browse your hard drive and upload files without you explicitly telling it to.

      Same here. Even the most computer illiterate should be aware that having a browser able to do such a thing without the user's permission is crazy. Why is anyone, on Slashdot no less, even debating it?

    2. Re: Four words: Lower Merion School District by contra_mundi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's a tasty piece of FUD and they have a beef with Mozilla?

    3. Re: Four words: Lower Merion School District by clang_jangle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is not necessarilly a good idea to do everything in the browser.

      That's an understatement! Unfortunately, in the future we will be doing pretty much everything in the browser if the ISPs and **AA get their way. Total lockdown is their "final solution", and they'll most likely get it. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I believe these are the good old days -- enjoy them while they last...

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    4. Re: Four words: Lower Merion School District by Angst+Badger · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is not necessarilly a good idea to do everything in the browser.

      Damn straight. That's what emacs is for.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    5. Re: Four words: Lower Merion School District by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Flash has had this for quite a while, and I don't see any evidence of it being abused in a large scale.

      As long as there's a browser confirmation dialog (something like the yellow bar when websites want to install extensions) I see no problem with this.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
  8. Open formats eh? by mhaymo · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this is an attempt to win back the HTML 5 video format wars from H.264?

  9. One of the last reasons to have flash by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    is finally gone.
    With this any UVC webcam will be able to stream from Mac, Linux or Windows to the world. Peoples fav cam sites will be usable without the security issues.
    The great part of this is the source is been seen by a few different people and can be optimised and fixed if Linux, Apple or Windows 'upgrades' in a strange new way.
    Would this work on the new Windows phones or Apple pads/touches or do Apple and Windows keep webcam streaming locked down for their apps and value adding partners?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:One of the last reasons to have flash by __int64 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, blah blah blah.

      Security, 'upgrades', lock down, apps, value adding partners...And next time for bonus, be sure to include: a discussion of 'utility', mention something called "mobile equity", and try to work in a reference to capital markets, where relevant of course.

    2. Re:One of the last reasons to have flash by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Was thinking of 'Windows Phone 7 limits camera access for apps"
      http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-20020522-56.html?tag=mncol;1n
      They seem to be 'working on it' or its not for any app to use :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  10. interesting by pak9rabid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, this sure is a clever way to push their tag video and audio codecs. If only everyone would invent something cool to get their formats accepted.

    1. Re:interesting by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      It's not their audio or video tag and they also didn't invent it.

      http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#devices

  11. Web must be two way, not consume-only, read-only by h00manist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, there is malware. But lets not censor people because their computer may be insecure. We do need to encourage people to produce and publish more. Too much of the web is becoming filler "content" for selling commercials, the same as television and magazines. They don't really care what content is or says, as long as it's attention grabbing it sells ads.

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  12. Will anyone use it? by realinvalidname · · Score: 1

    This sort have thing has been possible for years with Flash, and before that with QuickTime for Java in an applet. I guess the novelty here is exposing it to JavaScript, and using politically-correct codecs and containers. Very few developers used in-browser capture in Flash or QTJ, even though they were cross-browser, so what's the realistic chance of this getting used?

    1. Re:Will anyone use it? by mouf · · Score: 1

      Actually, exposing it in Javascript is not new. Some online services are already doing it (For instance: Apideo). However, it is nice to see WebM coming to live streaming. Most of the problems with current technology based on Flash is that Flash live streaming does only support VP6, which is an old codec with very poor quality and high bandwidth consumption.
      My guess is a nice codec matching the quality of Skype, right in the browser, might help a wide adoption of live camera streaming.

  13. Re:Web must be two way, not consume-only, read-onl by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    I didn't suggest any censorship.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  14. Such small meager steps. by John+Sokol · · Score: 1

    I really wish I had the time to work on it myself.

    Basic audio and video capture should be really trivial, but I have no idea what the Mozilla code looks like inside.

    Streaming audio and video from the browser is something I am currently trying to play with using Java, but
    I don't know java very well and and very rusty with it. Probably will need to pay a friend to help get it working.

    I would be willing to share some of my older code (from livecam) and answer questions for anyone struggling to figure this stuff out.

    www.videotechnology.com

    --
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
  15. Re:But, does it work on Linux? by LingNoi · · Score: 1

    I don't understand how it can work at all since FF4 Beta doesn't support the binary functions from FileAPI at all. Very annoying btw, I wish someone would fix that like they have done in Webkit for months.

  16. Re:But, does it work on Linux? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    Believe me, you're not the only one waiting for that.

    In the meantime, you can only say "Safari or Chrome only" to your users, if you have that luxury. What are Opera doing about that, too?

  17. Not happy with Mozilla by flimflammer · · Score: 1

    When did Mozilla switch their focus from a fast lightweight browser that outperformed the competition to the near bloated mess it's winding up as now? People have software to do this sort of thing already. Do we really need Firefox to do this? Firefox isn't really an application framework. It isn't an Operating System. Lets stop adding things that aren't necessary, please!

    Not only that, but can other browses (IE, Chrome, etc) play Theora/Vorbis video files in their own video tags? If not, then are they really suggesting broad features that are limited in scope only to Firefox? I think it would be an annoyance to wind up on someone's page who relies on these technologies, and having them exclude every browser other than Firefox from accessing the content. That's a move that we've scorn Microsoft for.

    1. Re:Not happy with Mozilla by dejanc · · Score: 1

      When did Mozilla switch their focus from a fast lightweight browser that outperformed the competition to the near bloated mess it's winding up as now?

      I think that happened with 1.0 RC1 release. Some people are still mourning their Firefox 0.7

      Seriously, we've been over this a long time ago. Firefox is good because it can be as bloated as you want it to be. I, for one, am glad that Firefox never mistook usability for lack of features (like some other open source projects which I shan't name).

  18. Re:Recording video in the browser? Great... by BenoitRen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now if only people would understand why Firefox can't support proprietary codecs - nah, there's not enough intelligence for that.

  19. Why? by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

    There's an increasing tendency to put everything in the web browser, making it the Jack of all trades. What's the point of putting audiovisual recording in the web browser? Why can't the user just use their own recording software and upload the result using the ubiquitous (sp?) file upload form control?

  20. Re:Recording video in the browser? Great... by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    H. 264 is also propriatry, so aside from the fact that it costs money, it also kinda messes up Firefox's "open-sourceness" - and therefore will go against their main mission of sorts.

    Now if there was an open-source video decoder, you'd be sure that they'd have it implemented in two shakes of a fox's tail - in fact, there's already <video> tags working, which I assume uses theora.

  21. Re:Recording video in the browser? Great... by icebraining · · Score: 1

    Maybe they only listen to non-selfish demands?

    --
    Dilbert RSS feed
  22. Finger on the pulse by Wowsers · · Score: 1

    Recording in the browser, this is an excellent idea.... just something else to crash PulseAudio.

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
  23. More Popular by assertation · · Score: 1

    More popular would be an extension to remove all of those Facebook symbols and links you find all over the web.

  24. This is firing the first shot across the front bow by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    It's a serious challenge to the top browser.

    You know, emacs.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  25. Re:Who is with me? by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

    Just swap it back to the old one in your profile settings.

  26. Re:Recording video in the browser? Great... by rjstanford · · Score: 1

    I guess Mozilla could try to make a donation drive for the five million it'll cost annually to get every Firefox copy cleared with licensing.

    Or they could just use the already-licensed codecs baked in to the incredibly well documented, supported, and high-performance video subsystem of most installed operating systems rather than trying to ignore their host system and the user's previously set preferences completely and apply their own standards...

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  27. XP+Ubuntu outnumbers Vista+Win7+OS X by tepples · · Score: 1

    Or they could just use the already-licensed codecs baked in to the incredibly well documented, supported, and high-performance video subsystem of most installed operating systems

    Windows XP and Ubuntu lack the built-in H.264 and AAC codecs that Windows Vista, Windows 7, and Mac OS X have. And the last time I checked, the former combined still outnumbered the latter combined.

  28. Re:Recording video in the browser? Great... by tepples · · Score: 1

    Now if there was an open-source video decoder, you'd be sure that they'd have it implemented in two shakes of a fox's tail - in fact, there's already tags working, which I assume uses theora.

    Firefox 3.6 can use .ogg with Theora video and Vorbis audio, comparable to DivX (AVI with MPEG-4 ASP video and MP3 audio). Firefox 4 can also use .webm (renamed .mkv with VP8 video and Vorbis audio), and VP8 is roughly equal in video quality to the baseline profile of H.264.

  29. Chrome and Opera play Theora video by tepples · · Score: 1

    Firefox isn't really an application framework. It isn't an Operating System.

    If not Firefox, then what is a web application framework? You appear not to want Firefox to be a web application framework, but a lot of other Slashdot users disapprove of technologies from Adobe and Oracle.

    Not only that, but can other browses (IE, Chrome, etc) play Theora/Vorbis video files in their own video tags?

    Chrome and Opera already play Theora video, and IE 9 will play Theora and VP8 with codec packs that organizations such as Xiph.Org and Google are expected to provide. This leaves Safari on Mac and IE on Windows XP.

  30. Re:Web must be two way, not consume-only, read-onl by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

    Yes, there is malware. But lets not censor people because their computer may be insecure. We do need to encourage people to produce and publish more. Too much of the web is becoming filler "content" for selling commercials, the same as television and magazines. They don't really care what content is or says, as long as it's attention grabbing it sells ads.

    People produce and publish lots already. Given the number of blogs, facebook posts, tweets, youtube videos, etc. that are posted daily, I don't think the problem is it's difficult to publish. Encouraging people to produce more content would just drive the signal to noise ratio down even further because now everyone will be broadcasting their every fart and live streaming of their toilet feces that it'll drive everyone else to the edited gardens where the signal to noise ratio is purportedly higher.

    It's why we don't visit hundreds of blogs daily, and use things like RSS and aggregators. There's so much crap out there that having someone do a bit of pruning and posting what they think people are interested in is a product in and of itself. Which is basically just rehashing what some content producer has published. It may not be the same as the big media networks out there, but the little popular ones will just rise to take their place, bringing together eyeballs and content producers. And advertisers to help pay for it all.