Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Ditches Silverlight With HTML5 Support In IE11
An anonymous reader writes "Netflix today announced that it has finally taken the first step towards ditching Silverlight for HTML5, largely thanks to Microsoft, no less. The company has been working closely with the Internet Explorer team to implement its proposed 'Premium Video Extensions' in IE11 on Windows 8.1, meaning if you install the operating system preview released today, you can watch Netflix content using HTML5 right now. Back in April, Netflix revealed its plans to use HTML5 video in any browser that implements its proposed 'Premium Video Extensions.' These extensions allow playback of premium video (read: with DRM protection) directly in the browser without the need to install plugins such as Silverlight or Flash."
I like how it touts the fact that you don't need to install flash or silverlight but you still need to install Netflix's DRM stuff to decode the data. And if your operating system or machine isn't supported by Netflix, then you can't view the data. I don't see how this is any better than flash or silverlight. With those, you just need to install either flash or silverlight but now you need to install a DRM from each provider.
If I still have to have an approved OS and browser and install a DRM plugin, it's not really just HTML5.
Oh wow, we swapped one plugin for another.
Premium Video Extensions - That sounds like a plugin. Its good if you want to lock people into one video system, but definitely not html 5.
If it's still MS only, who gives a shit?
Yes, through the same Premium Video Extensions that is being used here.
According to Netflix, Microsoft made this possible by implementing three features in its still-unfinished IE11:
The Media Source Extensions (MSE), using the Media Foundation APIs within Windows. Since Media Foundation supports hardware acceleration using the GPU, Netflix can achieve high quality 1080p video playback with minimal CPU and battery utilization.
The Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) using Microsoft PlayReady DRM. This provides the content protection needed for media services like Netflix.
The Web Cryptography API (WebCrypto), which allows Netflix to encrypt and decrypt communication between its JavaScript application and its servers.
Sounds like this is locked into windows via the Media Foundation APIs
If it's still MS only, who gives a shit?
It's already in Chrome OS on Samsung ARM-based ChromeBooks. They beat Windows to the punch a while ago.
The only thing new here is that it's now also in Windows 8.1 preview IE11.
What it's likely never going to be is generic to a non-locked down browser implementation, which means it's not going to be on a BSD or Linux system without some form of lockdown. Otherwise it's too easy to do unencrypted frame grabbing to de-DRM the content, which is precisely what they don't want.
Of course, it's not like you couldn't just hook up one of these in place of the flat panel LCD and capture it unencrypted anyway:
http://www.unigraf.fi/product/ufg-04-lvds-quad
http://www.goepel.com/?id=2392&L=4
http://www.teledynedalsa.com/imaging/products/fg/OR-64L0-00080/
Question is: Will it work on Linux? If so, that's the big story here. Then I (and many others) wouldn't have to Hackintosh or put Windows on their (HT)PC to watch Netflix.
If so, this is a story.
Geez, talk about stretching the meaning of "such as." The whole point of this is that it lets you play it in the browser by installing a proprietary single-source plugin. Sure, you can argue that your plugin isn't "like" Sliverlight or Flash, just like Microsoft might say Silverlight is also not a plugin like Flash, and Adobe might argue that Flash is not a plugin like Java. And the guy serving malware on porn sites might argue his video codec is not a malware plugin like the other ones are. "My plugin takes spam-sending orders from this botnet, not that botnet! See? It's totally different!"
That is exactly how these extensions are not plugins like Flash or Silverlight. In other words: totally meaningless bullshit. It's just another plugin, which happens to use a newer API.
Lie all you want about it not being a plugin, but the lie is pretty transparent and does more to discredit the speaker than it does to really deceive anyone.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I'd be interested in hearing what other protocols would work?
The only ones I know of for network traffic are TCP and UDP. TCP guarantees in-order delivery of packets which think would be important for things like video, but I suppose that would cause lag if there were a lot of dropped packets.
Disclaimer, I do very little network stuff and only had exposure to Networking 1 and 2 during University ten years ago and setting up the occasional WiFi. So I'm probably out of date and this is a serious question not a troll.
Ahh, so it seems that it is using the W3C extensions, it's just that Microsoft has implemented them in IE before other browsers have.
Bravo!
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
I don't know if it changed but when I was in Canada, Netflix content was horribly outdated. In the US however, not so. They have a lot of brand new stuff.
Without DRM, someone could use a basic chrome plugin or a greasemonkey script to download the original video straight up, with virtually no need to rip anything.
Im not saying I agree, but its not as simple as you make it sound.
That said, Im curious how many people actually watch netflix online anymore, with the proliferation of set top boxes and netflix being built in every console, smart TVs and mobile devices under the sun.
Just on top of my head, at home we have 3 phones, 4 nintendo 3DS, WiiU, Xbox, blu ray player, the smart tv, the Roku and 2 android tablets with HDMI output that can run Netflix. Thats not counting any x86 machines....
I don't have to install a plugin. I have to install an extension instead. Can someone tell me how/why this is better/different? FFS!
A) people don't like Silverlight
B) the rumor is Microsoft is dropping Silverlight
If (B) is true then you probably want some sort of alternative. For example, depending on how they code, the plug-in could be fairly modular. If that company / group goes belly-up then hopefully by then there are more modules to pick from.
If that suggests/implies it'll eventually work on Linux with HTML5/extensions on Chrome browser, I can live with that.
All the shouting about DRM being evil and everything doesn't really accomplish what we want. You end up looking like a zealot, and you would have better luck holding back the tide with a thimble. If you want to get rid of DRM, you need to show them that it's not necessary. The best way you can do that is by not pirating their stuff, and actually paying for it if you feel that it's worth paying for. If you don't think it's worth the price they're charging, then don't pay it, but don't download it and then rationalize it by saying that it's too expensive to pay for, or you plan on deleting it once you've watched it. The people creating content have a right to set the price they want to charge for it, and you, the consumer, have a right to vote with your wallet. But voting with your wallet does *not* mean circumventing the rights of the creators, it means not consuming the product at all.
And I realize there's a very good chance that you don't download stuff that you haven't paid for, and that I'm ranting at the wrong person, but I have absolutely zero sympathy for the people who piss and moan about DRM in one breath, and then talk about how they download their movies and music because information wants to be free. These people are the reason DRM exists in the first place. I don't like DRM either, but as long as it doesn't interfere with the legitimate use of a product or service I'm paying for, I don't really notice it. If it starts to interfere with my use, I simply won't buy the product in question. The market will sort itself out, but as long as people keep giving them a reason to invent more draconian methods, those methods are going to keep being created.
Indeed. Netflix current works for Mac users... what's going to happen to them?
Sounds like this is locked into windows via the Media Foundation APIs
There may be lock in, but it's not exclusive to Microsoft:
Media Source Extensions (MSE) This specification extends HTMLMediaElement to allow JavaScript to generate media streams for playback. Allowing JavaScript to generate streams facilitates a variety of use cases like adaptive streaming and time shifting live streams.
Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) This proposal extends HTMLMediaElement providing APIs to control playback of protected content.
Web Cryptography API (WebCrypto) This specification describes a JavaScript API for performing basic cryptographic operations in web applications, such as hashing, signature generation and verification, and encryption and decryption.
They're all W3C standards track specifications. The first two have editors from the same three corporations; Google, Microsoft and Netflix. Google, in particular, can't tolerate not being capable of playing Netflix (10% of the population of the US subscribes to this) on its platforms (Android and Chrome OS.) It already works on both and you can take it for granted that Google expects to achieve parity with these specifications.
The last specification is not specific to streaming; it's a general purpose Javascript API to perform common cryptographic operations.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
It does not suggest that, nor will that ever happen.
It is simply impossible to do so, since nothing would stop you from writing the output into a file. Unless you want to be booting a netflix signed kernel on your netflix signed hardware.
None of that changes the fact that these are simply incompatible with FOSS. No FOSS browser on a FOSS OS can ever support these. Well unless you want DRMed hardware, but then you might as well just give it all up anyway.
How does this play out in the release version of Firefox? Because in TFA it sounds like, very soon, I may not be able to watch Netflix on my computer any more without a preview version of IE. :^(
For now, it's just use Silverlight, but will MS share its new platform lockdown?
None of that changes the fact that these are simply incompatible with FOSS
No claim made to the contrary. It's still lock in, as I said. It's just not specific to Microsoft.
Reading comprehension. Try it sometime.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
MPEG DASH is nice but it's no Silverlight replacement.
TCP hogs up precious BW? Since when? Only in environments where packet loss is substantial is there any real issue, but then again, UDP would likely be much worse. Throw in some of the better optional parts like selective ACK, and TCP is pretty efficient.
Bullshit. The W3C "standard" is only a plugin API.
The EME is tied to vendor provided Content Decryption Modules (CDMs). The standard does not specify the CDMs at all. It's a black box with "do as you like" label.
So even if the web content is using EME it does not mean at all that you can watch the content in your web browser. Just like you cannot watch Flash content without Flash, you will not be able to watch content without the vendor CDM.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
It doesn't in the slightest.
Rejecting flawed schemes that do nothing to accomplish the intended goal is zealotry?
It isn't necessary. It has already failed and will always fail. The problems is those who demand it the most are engaging in magical thinking and, like the most common magical thinkers, believe in DRM with blind faith.
DRM is about enforcing decaying business models and exerting control well past the point of sale (or eliminating the "sale" completely and moving towards perpetual rentership. See DivX.
If everyone would embrace that DRM is evil and violets your rights then we would accomplish what we want. Netflix and Hollywood is just a tiny minority, and they are still a tiny minority on the Open Web.
But politicians and the W3C sucking up to Hollywood and to all the lobbying groups that spend Millions of dollars to push for harder punishments and stricter copyright. And it will not end at your videos, music and ebooks. I'm talking about fundamental rights, like property rights, re-sale rights, freedom of speech, privacy rights.
If DRM and copyright would all about videos from Netflix I wouldn't care at the least. But the Hollywood, MAFIA, RIAA lobby is like a forest fire that will burn everything to the ground to maximize profits for a few groups.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
you will not be able to watch content without the vendor CDM.
Didn't claim you would be able to. I just pointed out that it isn't Microsoft only. The point of the original post was that the HTML5 extensions were "locked into windows," which they are clearly not. It may be locked into all kinds of other crap, but it's not Windows only.
And stop foaming at the mouth.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
Since they utterly screwed up the silverlight app that they run in IE10 and you now have to watch netflix with Firefox, which is slightly less glitchy, how about they fix that instead? You know, since nobody uses Windows 8 or 8.1 or IE11. Spending a ton of money on a giant project that affects nearly 0% of your userbase is pretty darn stupid.
Without DRM, someone could use a basic chrome plugin or a greasemonkey script to download the original video straight up, with virtually no need to rip anything.
The people that can do that, are the same people that can torrent. The people that torrent and pay Netflix, do that because of the high downstreem speeds.
The DRM battle isn't a technical but a psychological one.
DRM doesn't prevent you from 'playin on unauthorized devices' as long as the media is available somewhere else, stripped from DRM, and cheaper than the DRM'd one.
DRM objective is to provide the illusion that you are legitimacy, to reinforce the reason for spending money on something that otherwise can be obtained for free*
Otherwise, i cannot find a logical explanation for DRM, as it bothers your customers, giving them a reason to learn how to learn how use 'alternative ways'. *free if you ignore the time and moral cost.
Am I an exception? 99.9% of the time I spend on Netflix is either on iPad or on my Samsung Smart TV.
So say we all
You lock out a lot of users/platforms denting bottom line.
While no DRM would please the users, it would mightily displease the content owners, which Netflix is contracting with to legally provide their video streams. The vast majority of them *ABSOLUTELY DEMAND* DRM, as in not having it means Netflix can't legally offer their content.
Less content = less value = no customers anyways.
It's a bit of a crappy spot for Netflix to be in. Annoy the customers with DRM, or have no real content?
I don't read AC A human right
TCP is quite good about not hogging, just make sure you don't have insane buffer bloat causing the protocol to not realize that there is congestion. Otherwise TCP is quite good at backing off.
> If it starts to interfere with my use, I simply won't buy the product in question.
This statement as you wrote it doesn't seem to make sense --- how could DRM interfere with your use before you buy the product in question?
So, if I assume that means that you plan ahead, for example, based on historical experience with DRM, I guess that means you don't buy anything with DRM. But then your whole post doesn't make sense...
> These people are the reason DRM exists in the first place.
No their not. The content industry's total inability to undergo the withdrawal symptoms from the powerful drug it became addicted to --- (practically) total control over the advertising, supply, and distribution of its product sector --- is the reason for DRM.
The Linux crowd includes cheap effective set-top boxes, like Roku. You may want to alter your argument.
And it is then that you realize why Richard Stallman insisted on the term GNU/Linux. Graphical computers that use the Linux kernel can be divided into three categories. The first is GNU/Linux, which uses glibc, GNU Coreutils, an X11 server, and a Free desktop environment such as Xfce, KDE Plasma, GNOME, or Unity. The second is Android. The third is embedded Linux, seen on home router appliances and "cheap effective set-top boxes", and this variant is the most likely of the three to be thoroughly Tivoized.
Not really any more of a "guarantee", it's just another layer of verification, at a lower layer, which adds unnecessary additional overhead, slow start, poor behavior (for streaming) when there is occasional packet loss or congestion, etc.
And reliable delivery is certainly NOT needed for streaming video and audio. Such codecs were designed to be able to handle some data loss. That's why most streaming protocols (RTP, RTSP) are UDP-based. You'll see video glitches if there's packet loss, but everything will keep working just fine.
Contrast that with transferring zip files, PDFs, word documents, etc., where a single bit being missing or wrong will render it completely useless.
Networking 101.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
You can't abuse market power until you have market power. Netflix VOD has no monopoly. It competes with Amazon Prime and with disc rental.
Even if HTML5 EME isn't "locked into Windows", Netflix appears to have chosen a Content Decryption Module that is.
Funny, as you can already do this on any rooted Android and the Netflix app. It didn't stop netflix from making the Android app. Your point is invalid. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ms.screencast&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDEsImNvbS5tcy5zY3JlZW5jYXN0Il0.
Well then why have DRM at all?
If you want to get rid of DRM, you need to show them that it's not necessary. The best way you can do that is by not pirating their stuff
The trouble is that even if I create my own stuff instead of pirating their stuff, some big publishers are likely to claim that my stuff is too similar. I know of companies that already do that.
I'd be interested in hearing what other protocols would work?
The only ones I know of for network traffic are TCP and UDP. TCP guarantees in-order delivery of packets which think would be important for things like video, but I suppose that would cause lag if there were a lot of dropped packets.
TCP is not used for Video or Audio streaming as you do not want to have a lost packet cause a fault in the stream. You use UDP and build your own protocol on top of that to handle the ordering and loss of packets (which you will have).
The official protocol to use (per standards) is UDP MultiCast; however, that requires the routers throughout the Internet to support Multicasting which is generally disabled - thus you can't use it except on dedicated and unmanaged networks. Multicast is primarily targetted at having one source and many receivers, with best path algorithms built-in. Not sure if it solves the packet loss and ordering issues too, possibly. But the ISPs and their Backbone Providers are the main reason we can't actually use it.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
This is oh so very true. Nobody "needs" to watch the latest movie or TV episode. Pirating content just gives them ammunition to push government for laws against breaking DRM, and justifies their use of DRM. If there was nobody pirating the content, there would be no use for the DRM to be there in the first place. Netflix gives more more content than I could ever hope to watch. Sure, it may not have specific movies that I want, but at $7.99 a month, it certainly is a great deal. That's less than the cost of 2 movie rentals with Blockbuster.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
TCP hogs up precious BW? Since when? Only in environments where packet loss is substantial is there any real issue, but then again, UDP would likely be much worse. Throw in some of the better optional parts like selective ACK, and TCP is pretty efficient.
TCP works pretty well in environments with high packet loss. Just as good as UDP does. There is a point of no return there though.
Now, I do agree, TCP doesn't hog bandwidth. In fact, it limits an applications ability to flood the network. Each TCP stream can typically use at most 33.33% of the network. You can get around that by using multiple TCP streams, which also happens to be the best way to handle high packet loss environments (such as SatComm).
And yes, I've worked in those environments.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Not true at all. You only need to "show them" that there are other, easier ways to copy "their stuff".
Music download services didn't go DRM-free because people stopped illegally downloading them... They went DRM-free because attempts to add DRM to CDs failed miserably, so DRM on downloads was a pointless restriction that penalized legitimate paying customers.
The same is true for Netflix. As long as people can get the videos on DVD and Blu-ray, where it's easy to rip and redistribute, there's little reason for anyone to WANT the hassle of downloading their lower quality Netflix streams, yet the DRM adds extra hassle for paying customers, and cuts off some of the potential market.
And what's more, this is a story that's repeated over and over again. Media companies resist new technology as much as possible, biting and scratching as they're dragged into the future, screaming that their business model is destroyed. Then when they finally get there, against their will, it turns out they can actually make much more money than before. It has happened before, it is happening now, and it'll happen again. The RIAA just had to face these issues slightly earlier than the MPAA, so the latter is still somewhere in the middle of their 7-stage process.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Due to mono and wine I am able to view any content via streaming. This just means it'll be even simpler since I won't need the sluggish mono/silverlight layer.
Exactly right.
Netflix: By the time content hits your service, it's already been pirated, from much higher quality sources, and is widely available to download.
Nobody wants or needs to rip your streams.
MS has a desktop monopoly, now they refuse to sell their CDM to other people operating in that space. Is that kosher or not?
It's kosher as long as anybody else can make a competing CDM that supports Windows and other platforms and sell it to VOD providers. Let me draw an analogy: Microsoft has a desktop monopoly and refuses to sell Halo 2 for other desktop operating systems. Is that kosher? Yes, because anybody else can sell a competing first-person shooter.
The real issue is that GNU/Linux lacks the infrastructure to support a CDM acceptable to the movie studios. To the developers of Linux and X.Org X11, "DRM" means direct rendering manager, not digital restrictions management. I haven't really seen any way to turn off cleartext digital outputs and keep debuggers and hypervisors from teeing the decrypted video to a file.
The main difference between TCP and UDP can be described thus:
- TCP is guaranteed data integrity and in-order data payload delivery at the transport layer, along with congestion control to make sure packets aren't being sent too fast for the receiving end to process (either because the device is too slow to process it, or because the pipe is saturated.)
- UDP is just spit the data across the pipe without actually checking anything. UDP offers lower packet overhead and lower latency (no need to wait for ACK's and dropped packets don't need to be retransmitted) and is more forgiving during congestion. Internet Protocol does the same, by the way - UDP and TCP get encapsulated into the Internet Protocol packet.
For live streaming, usually UDP is preferred, and the error correction is handled at either layer 6 or 7. Generally the application will use parity whereby so long as you get an arbitrary number (say 95% of the data) you'll see the whole thing uninterrupted, even if some packets arrive out of order, though in some applications this isn't even needed.
UDP is almost universally used for VoIP and video conferencing. Games used to only use UDP for this reason back in the dialup days, though many newer ones (e.g. world of warcraft I know of) uses TCP, and it does come at the expense of added latency. I don't know what netflix uses, but since it isn't "live" per se and it does buffer, I imagine it would be easier to program it in TCP.
BitTorrent now uses a really neat variation of UDP that they call uTP. Although it *is* UDP, they added some TCP functions without most of its drawbacks. TCP only makes congestion control corrections *after* the link is already congested, whereas uTP is less aggressive and monitors the link to scale itself so that it doesn't cause latency spikes on your link.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Keeping up appearances, making is somewhat difficult?
Call me again when Netflix is offering a CDM for Linux.
> And stop foaming at the mouth.
I call bullshit if I see it.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
Thanks, it's all coming back to me now I remember the application network layers. I'll have to look into this uTP protocol, first time I've heard of it. Back when I was in networking we were told UDP and TCP. UDP if order doesn't matter and you can add any TCP requirements yourself if they're necessary, I'm guessing that's pretty much what uTP is.
Sounds like this is locked into windows via the Media Foundation APIs
FYI, Chrome also implements these. It is "embrace and extend", but it's collaboration between MS, Google and (possibly) Apple, and is not tied to any particular platform.
All you people that mercilessly assaulted the idea of HTML5 DRM extensions, this is the result. If there's no standardized way for Netflix to not use Silverlight, then they'll just use something else proprietary. How likely do you think it is that Firefox will get these proprietary extensions? Sure DRM is evil and ineffective, but pointing that out won't make it go away. There has to be some way that every browser can build in the hooks and let a web site install their own DRM plugin without needing to restart anything. Oh wait, we could have had that but you said no!
Where Stallman says no, Ballmer sees opportunity for big profit.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Because Netflix and the RIAA/MPAA are full of shit?
Bravo! They have implemented DRM centered around preserving someone else's business model while solving no problems whatsoever!
That's the definition of the ECE spec. It's literally Yet Another Plugin Interface that solves no problems but establishes in the HTML5 standard a path by which you can be HTML5 compliant but unable to access swaths of content on the web.
Incidentally, I was reading through my twitter and some devs were chatting about how people shouldn't lock themselves into Microsoft's proprietary formats. Because when Microsoft or that particular program goes, you're pretty much screwed. Netflix putting all it's Eggs in the Microsoft basket is just asking for failure.
Pirates don't rip streaming media but Blurry discs or something of higher quality.
If it's a blurry disc, wouldn't it be lower quality? *badum tish*
No, Chrome and Chromebook were first.
http://hothardware.com/News/Netflix-Backing-HTML5-But-Not-Without-DRM-In-Place/
This space for rent.
Because the protected path will shut itself off if you load a driver not blessed by MS. So unless you have signing keys forget about that. This is one of the ways windows protects media from the PC owner.
Recording off the HDMI would not cause any quality loss.
A binary blob for Linux would mean copying the media would be as simple as capturing the output or using tee.
Nobody "needs" to watch the latest movie or TV episode. Pirating content just gives them ammunition to push government for laws against breaking DRM
Wishful thinking. The reality is that they'll always use copyright infringement as an excuse to lobby for draconian laws and harm their customers. Do not think of it as anything more than a terrible excuse.
No bravo here, the EME just allows the loading of Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), which are plugins by any other name. In terms of being able to play content on any browser/os you want, this is a retreat from the 00s era of Flash everywhere back to the 90s era of "install this random plugin, please!"
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Control_Transmission_Protocol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datagram_Congestion_Control_Protocol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliable_User_Datagram_Protocol
SCTP is the most widely used of those AFAIK
There is also the RTSP/RTP/RTCP trio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Time_Streaming_Protocol) which are application layer (like HTTP, etc), built on UDP instead of TCP
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
TCP is not used for Video or Audio streaming as you do not want to have a lost packet cause a fault in the stream.
TCP is probably the most widely used protocol for video streaming. E.g. Youtube streams over TCP. Using TCP means you have more delay, because you have to wait for the occasional retransmit instead of just dropping a frame, but TCP is much easier to deal with overall. Network cards and IP stacks are optimized for TCP, firewalls handle TCP universally well... Unless it really matters that you are 10 seconds behind live (and it rarely does, even cable TV is several seconds behind live), go with TCP.
Video conferencing over TCP is probably not going to happen anytime soon though.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Any argument made that says DRM is completely necessary for video MUST also be true for music or books.
We already know that is not true.
Video is not some special magical thing that needs different protection. IP is IP is IP. End of story.
...
I agree that TCP congestion control helps prevent hogging bandwidth, but TCP streams only using at most 33.33% of the network varies greatly on the latency, the amount of buffers in the routers between both connections, and window size. Properly tuned TCP stacks can achieve MUCH higher network utilization than that, including most current windows OS's.
I don't have to install a plugin. I have to install an extension instead. Can someone tell me how/why this is better/different? FFS!
A) people don't like Silverlight
B) the rumor is Microsoft is dropping Silverlight
If (B) is true then you probably want some sort of alternative. For example, depending on how they code, the plug-in could be fairly modular. If that company / group goes belly-up then hopefully by then there are more modules to pick from.
It's an extension to the HTML5 specification, not an extension to the browser.
There is no plug-in, it's a protocol change that all HTML5 compliant browsers which meet the W3C specification are expected to implement.
Think of it as the new "blink tag".
If the closed source vendors didn't regularly make their old products obsolete, they'd have to work harder on a slimmer profit margin, and that's not their business model. They want to get rich, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
But for many enterprises, basing critically important operating software on something that won't evaporate next quarter makes more sense.
For example, if you set your company DNS up on a BIND server 20 years ago, and you're still running on it, you'll have spent significantly less on software maintenance and hardware to achieve the same level of security, reliability and interoperability that could have been provided through any other means.
Microsoft legitimately tries (unlike some companies) to provide strong backwards compatibility, so that staying on the treadmill of upgrades is not excessively onerous (just expensive) and they have slowly become much better about releasing patches in a timely fashion (though they still can't match open source on that front). The whole silverlight/.NET debacle shows, though, that their business model is still the same as other proprietary vendors, still relying on costly forced upgrades.
TCP is not used for Video or Audio streaming as you do not want to have a lost packet cause a fault in the stream.
TCP is probably the most widely used protocol for video streaming. E.g. Youtube streams over TCP. Using TCP means you have more delay, because you have to wait for the occasional retransmit instead of just dropping a frame, but TCP is much easier to deal with overall. Network cards and IP stacks are optimized for TCP, firewalls handle TCP universally well... Unless it really matters that you are 10 seconds behind live (and it rarely does, even cable TV is several seconds behind live), go with TCP.
Video conferencing over TCP is probably not going to happen anytime soon though.
Uhh..no. All streaming services typically use UDP. You don't care if a frame is dropped, but you do care about the performance for the end-user. You cannot get that with TCP. You may be surprised to find YouTube, et al use UDP for the actual streaming. You may also be surprised to find that networks and IP stacks are just as optimized for UDP - they can't really tell the difference. TCP and UDP both build on top of the IP stack, whether IPv4 or IPv6.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
I agree that TCP congestion control helps prevent hogging bandwidth, but TCP streams only using at most 33.33% of the network varies greatly on the latency, the amount of buffers in the routers between both connections, and window size. Properly tuned TCP stacks can achieve MUCH higher network utilization than that, including most current windows OS's.
Funny thing...I've done testing with directly connected computers using Fiber Channel. I didn't just pull the number out of thin air. And yes, you can do a little to adjust that; however, it's primarily the result of TCP's default control algorithm - Additive Increase, Multiplicative Decrease - which again, you can change. There has been proposals for Multiplicative Increase, Muliplicative Decrease algorithsms too, and you can certainly set those up in your Linux Kernel (and BSDs); but support for them is not very great in the wild.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Before I sent my original comment I did a tcpdump on YouTube just to be sure. TCP all the way.
And I can assure you that the IP stacks can tell the difference. Just look at the TCP offloading done in Linux. Only recently has some work been done on optimizing UDP offload, and it is nowhere near as mature.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?