From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 26 11:59:00 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3AF1106566C for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 11:59:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [IPv6:2001:4070:101:2::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 290688FC1D for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 11:58:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n4QBwqbh045412; Tue, 26 May 2009 13:58:52 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id n4QBwpdS045409; Tue, 26 May 2009 13:58:52 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 13:58:51 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar To: Jos Chrispijn In-Reply-To: <4A1BCEDE.1000701@webrz.net> Message-ID: References: <4A1A9FF0.40609@webrz.net> <4A1B01DC.1060800@webrz.net> <4A1BCEDE.1000701@webrz.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Streaming server X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 11:59:01 -0000 >> so please test as it's true :) >> > I did test it and indeed it looks that way... OK >> actually youtube player does not throttle at all - just load as fast as >> possible into memory while playing at normal speed. > Yes but we are now discussing another service here. Imho there is some > difference between downloading (and viewing) by HTTP or viewing a YouTube > movie thru a YouTube site (and watching a Flash movie instead). Do you mean > that providing any movie in Flash format will have the same advantages as it > has viewing such a file thru a YouTube server? exactly. you may make a webpage with just link to the movie(s) somewhere, maybe some selector, preview images, whatever you like. it's just matter of that difference. you too may write some javascript/whatever program that will set up the movie playing in the right place on screen, provide stop/start/rev/fd (i'm imprecise as i know little of "modern" web/java/javascript programming :). That's what youtube do, AND do extra effort to lower bandwidth efficiency by preventing caching and storing files ;) possibly because of copyright reasons as someone pointed out. More probably for some other reason, as most files on youtube are just users amateur videos not copyrighted restricted material - while youtube prevent caching everything. There will be no practical difference between playing from FTP/HTTP and this. >> realplayer do the same thing, and supports both URL's and "live" streaming >> protocol. > So it would be better to forget my issue and rely on the smart settings of > the client's movieplayer? exactly! or - if you like "cool" webpage interface just make that webpage similarly to youtube and provide just link with "Play" to your movies.