From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 14 21:25:07 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02FACBC2 for ; Wed, 14 May 2014 21:25:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx01.qsc.de (mx01.qsc.de [213.148.129.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5B662BF2 for ; Wed, 14 May 2014 21:25:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r56.edvax.de (port-92-195-108-40.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.108.40]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx01.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D460F3CCD5; Wed, 14 May 2014 23:25:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from r56.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r56.edvax.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id s4ELP20P002294; Wed, 14 May 2014 23:25:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 23:25:02 +0200 From: Polytropon To: Antonio Olivares Subject: Re: Firefox will adapt closed source DRM Message-Id: <20140514232502.88f3cf18.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: References: <20140514222320.cce7c921.freebsd@edvax.de> Reply-To: Polytropon Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.24.5; i386-portbld-freebsd8.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: FreeBSD Questions X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 21:25:07 -0000 On Wed, 14 May 2014 16:52:24 -0400, Antonio Olivares wrote: > I dont have flash. IT is a resource hog! CPU hovers to 90%+ levels. > If I want to see a youtube video, I use youtube script > > https://calomel.org/youtube_wget.html I don't just see "Flash" of a way to serve (and restrict) video content. To be honest, I usually use youtube-dl (from ports) and mplayer, because it's less resource-hungry and much more comfor- table to use, and of course I can watch videos while being offline. Yes, that's hard to imagine, I know. ;-) Still for the "normal" web user, built-in video has become a promary demand. This is where "Flash" has been the first choice on the desktop, but luckily this technology didn't really arrive in the mobile world. On the other hand, requiring a proprietary plugin that can turn today's powerful computers with plentycore processors, infinite RAM and dualdouble-HD-graphics into a slow snail seems to be quite strange. Furthermore: Do you require a browser plugin for displaying JPEG graphics? Or for rendering text centered? Or for having a link work? In my opinion, as video (and media in general) has become as "basic" to the web as rendering text, having references or embedding images, it should be a normal part of the browser - including (!) the ability to switch it off when desired! Just imagine a lot of browser tabs with "Flash" being used for advertising banners. No big deal, right? But open 50 - 100 tabs, and the system might start swapping, along with the CPU cores being heavily in use, and the browser could even become partially inresponsive. (Yes, I've actually tried that!) 1 [|||| 7.9%] 2 [| 2.6%] Mem[|||||||||||||||||||1597/1990MB] Swp[|||||| 404/2047MB] But allow me to mention "Flash" also as an abusive way of "replacing HTML". Concept: "Flash" is for interactivity. Some "web geniuses" use it to avoid any normal navigation within a page. No text, no images, no links. Nothing without "Flash". Very "nice" to users who use a Braille readout. You also find much more complex interactivity in web games, written for "Flash", which are quite popular. Those kinds of content can consume much more resources locally than a simple video would require. Of course, HTML 5 is an alternative. It _should_ be able to completely obsolete "Flash". On the other hand: Those who create content might want to control the content, and restrict it. So they demand that there's a way so they can easily do that. This way is usually present in the browser (either through a plugin, or by the browser itself). And again let me emphasize: When the user cannot see the dancing bunnies, it's the browser's fault. > I donț trust flash on my pc and I donț want to have flash enabled > here. So I wonder if firefox would give the option to enable that > stuff or not. When you take into mind that the plugin that plays a postage-stamp sized video with crappy 8-bit like sound quality to you hooks so deeply into your operating system, it's really scary: % kldstat Id Refs Address Size Name 1 17 0xc0400000 807aec kernel [...] 6 1 0xc6c14000 2000 linux_adobe.ko Where's the kernel plugin for PNG images? And those for MP3 files? And the one for text typeset in sans-serif fonts? ;-) > I agree with you in the stay in the game part of firefox. But could > not they do it with HTML5? Firefox implements HTML 5, but those who design the content that will then be rendered _by_ Firefox might want to have abilities that extend what HTML 5 offers, that's why "Flash" has been so popular decades ago. Now that HTML 5 can do all this stuff, it could also have DRM functionalities. And the nature of restriction is that nobody should know how it works - "security by obscurity". So proprietary blobs are required, and those who want them also have influence on how the HTML 5 standard is being designed. There are additional "goals" which DRM solutions want to provide: It's not only to apply restrictions in who can view content, but also in how far content can be used (downloaded, played). And then there's surveillance: _who_ is watching this video stream? What else is he watching? Can a "profile" be created with this information? Can it add up to "big data"? Can it be monetized? All this can be done when you don't know what a browser component does because there is no source code for it. That's why I'd also like to see an option at least for Firefox building that would allow to omit all proprietary components, resulting in a "limited" version of the program that would then maybe just show a grey box with a text label "DRM restricted content" when a DRM-infected content is encountered. We have other, more comfortable means to access such content. :-) > why is DRM so important that it is needed so much as to stain an > otherwise decent web browser. Because content providers want control over what people can do. Just imagine a web where information would be free to view by and user, where the user could download media and view it offline as often as he likes! That would be a massive threat to democracy, to growth, and the way of life in general! :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...