Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the straightforward-enough dept.

Firefox 132

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This should lead to some "interesting" malware. (2, Interesting)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34057994)

n/t

Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34058010)

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

Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. (0, Troll)

an00bis (667089) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058086)

To those who complain so much about Flash, enjoy your HTML5.

Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. (3, Insightful)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058190)

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

Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. (2, Funny)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058354)

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

Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. (2, Interesting)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058418)

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.

Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. (1)

ThePromenader (878501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34059352)

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.

Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. (2, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34059706)

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.

Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34061062)

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 [google.com] embedded in my browser, for example.

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

Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. (1)

ThePromenader (878501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34061360)

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?

Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. (1)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 3 years ago | (#34060702)

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.

Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. (0, Flamebait)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058290)

Yeah, no kidding. If they ever include this "feature" in Firefox, I'm switching to something else. Perhaps Konquerer.

Web must be two way, not consume-only, read-only (2, Insightful)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058696)

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.

Re:Web must be two way, not consume-only, read-onl (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058806)

I didn't suggest any censorship.

Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. (2, Funny)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058732)

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

Re:This should lead to some "interesting" malware. (1)

prionic6 (858109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34059990)

My first thought exactly.

There is no way this could go wrong!

so...uh... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058000)

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?

Re:so...uh... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058020)

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

Simple: By not installing it.

Re:so...uh... (5, Funny)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058032)

how do i NEVER get this add-on?

Use IE 6. ;)

Re:so...uh... (5, Insightful)

Cougar Town (1669754) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058144)

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.

Re:so...uh... (2, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058200)

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.

Re:so...uh... (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058520)

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.

Re:so...uh... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058774)

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.

Re:so...uh... (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#34059330)

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 [wikipedia.org] , that was the best browser ever.

Re:so...uh... (2, Insightful)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058782)

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.

Re:so...uh... (2, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058622)

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

Re:so...uh... (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 3 years ago | (#34059984)

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

Re:so...uh... (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34060864)

...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.

Re:so...uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34060916)

Obligatory Pulp Fiction quote: Say moron again motherfucker, I dare you

Four words: Lower Merion School District (1, Interesting)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058394)

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.

Re: Four words: Lower Merion School District (3, Insightful)

catbutt (469582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058488)

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?

Re: Four words: Lower Merion School District (1, Insightful)

contra_mundi (1362297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058518)

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

Re: Four words: Lower Merion School District (2, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058694)

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...

Re: Four words: Lower Merion School District (5, Funny)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058790)

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

Damn straight. That's what emacs is for.

Re: Four words: Lower Merion School District (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34061094)

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.

Re:so...uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34059350)

It is an add-on. Not baked in.
don't get your panties in a twist. You don't have to install it if you don't want

Re:so...uh... (2, Informative)

arielCo (995647) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058390)

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 [macromedia.com] and global [macromedia.com] .

Maybe the good boys at Mozilla thought of that too.

Re:so...uh... (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058656)

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

Re:so...uh... (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058978)

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

Re:so...uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34059046)

I bet you don't have flash installed, do you.

Re:so...uh... (1)

Hortensia Patel (101296) | more than 3 years ago | (#34060546)

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

Recording Indicator (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058046)

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.

Re:Recording Indicator (1)

vigmeister (1112659) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058104)

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!

Re:Recording Indicator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34058108)

I just wear my foil hat whenever I'm on the internet and use mirrors so that I don't make direct eye contact with the screen

Re:Recording Indicator (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058170)

I have a simpler solution: no camera and no microphone

Re:Recording Indicator (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058682)

or physical switches on the wires.

A Choice? Good luck with laptops. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34059060)

Anything made for the home lugs a camera and mic around. Go ahead and tape up the cam, but the mic can't be removed as trivially and has no "on" light.

Re:Recording Indicator (1)

Slutticus (1237534) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058180)

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

Re:Recording Indicator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34058838)

Pics of the successful attempts or it didn't happen.

Re:Recording Indicator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34058204)

Then disable the device at boot, with a script to toggle it.

My laptop has an LED that turns on whenever the camera is accessed, so this is pointless for me.

Re:Recording Indicator (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058446)

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.

Re:Recording Indicator (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058540)

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.

Re:Recording Indicator (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | more than 3 years ago | (#34059854)

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

Re:Recording Indicator (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34061102)

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.

Re:Recording Indicator (1)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058326)

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.

Re:Recording Indicator (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058692)

some designs have a physical cover for the lens.

Re:Recording Indicator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34058856)

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

And lest you think I'm being facetious... that is what the SHDN or \ON pin on a IC power supply controller is for. If that is not suitable for some reason, then a carefully placed MOSFET will take care of it. This can be tied to a soft switch, or a suitably bypassed and filtered physical switch with no connection to the computing device.

Re:Recording Indicator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34060348)

(Screw a red light in the desktop manager display.) I tried that ...now my screen is all cracked and fucked up!

Re:Recording Indicator (1)

sempir (1916194) | more than 3 years ago | (#34060518)

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

Re:Recording Indicator (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | more than 3 years ago | (#34059842)

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

Re:Recording Indicator (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34060508)

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.

1984 redux (1)

woboyle (1044168) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058110)

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

So what they're saying is... (4, Funny)

euroq (1818100) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058330)

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?

Obvious Joke (0, Flamebait)

rakuen (1230808) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058332)

Forget this, I'll just wait for the next release. They can call it the Double Rainbow.

In Soviet Russia... (5, Funny)

Penguinshit (591885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058374)

... Web browses YOU!

(c'mon: _somebody_ has to post this)

Re:In Soviet Russia... (1, Funny)

TheyTookOurJobs (1930780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058684)

BAD NO!

Open formats eh? (1)

mhaymo (1848710) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058406)

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

Re:Open formats eh? (0)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058554)

Yup

Rainbow Add-on??? (0, Offtopic)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058408)

I wonder how long it'll take for some televangelist to claim that Mozilla/Firefox is secretly promoting the "Gay Agenda". Anyone remember Jerry Falwell?

Re:Rainbow Add-on??? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34058690)

I'm sure he's buttfucking satan by now.

One of the last reasons to have flash (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058428)

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?

Re:One of the last reasons to have flash (1)

__int64 (811345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058570)

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.

interesting (4, Insightful)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058538)

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.

Re:interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34058766)

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.

These are no more "their" (Mozilla's) formats than they are Apple's, Microsoft's, Google's or Opera's. These are openly documented and patent-free (as far as anyone knows) formats that can (and should) be used anywhere that handles audio and video to ensure interoperability.

Hopefully the W3C can pick up some speed on the Device API [w3.org] so that there is a formalized way for other browsers to do this kind of thing. Access to local devices like webcams is important because even though not all of us may share an interest in services [chatroulette.com] that could make use of it, it is another step in weaning the web off Flash.

Re:interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34058778)

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.

The 27 H.264 licensors and 901 H.264 licensees include every recognizable brand name in audio and video. These are the guys who are going to build your next high tech gadget - and for them licensing H.264 holds no terrors.

Re:interesting (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34059052)

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 [whatwg.org]

Mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34060716)

I can't believe that the GP is modded insightful. What if the hell? It's neither their tag, nor their codec. They are pushing all of those technologies because they are open, and aren't patent encumbered. They are implementing an open standard with open codecs doing everyone a favor by attempting to make Flash irrelevant. That's more or less the opposite of trying to push their own thing.

The GP's post could be applied to Flash, but not to Mozilla. Macromedia/Adobe did invent something cool to push their own closed format.

What's more, Mozilla aren't even implementing a new invention - it's a reinvention of what Flash already did. So in two sentences the GP made more than three factual errors, misrepresented the intentions of at least one of the parties involved, and still managed to get +5 Insightful for that. Kudos.

But, does it work on Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34058586)

Current build is Mac only and requires FF4.0beta.

Re:But, does it work on Linux? (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34059064)

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.

Re:But, does it work on Linux? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34059558)

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?

Will anyone use it? (1)

realinvalidname (529939) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058780)

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?

Re:Will anyone use it? (1)

mouf (1849592) | more than 3 years ago | (#34060596)

Actually, exposing it in Javascript is not new. Some online services are already doing it (For instance: Apideo [apideo.com] ). 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.

Such small meager steps. (1)

John Sokol (109591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34058826)

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

Recording video in the browser? Great... (0, Troll)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34059110)

Now if only Firefox would support playing the most common modern video format, h.264 - nah, there's no demand for that.

Re:Recording video in the browser? Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34059308)

Now if only Firefox would support playing the most common modern video format, h.264 - nah, there's no demand for that.

Of course there's a demand for that. The question is, where's the money for that?

MPEG LA [wikimedia.org] holds onto h.264 licensing and I doubt they will let it go cheaply. I guess Mozilla could try to make a donation drive for the five million it'll cost annually [zdnet.com] to get every Firefox copy cleared with licensing.

Re:Recording video in the browser? Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34059552)

MPEG LA should give free licenses for software-only Internet playback, just to push HTML5 video ahead without problems. Even then, I bet Mozilla wouldn't add support for it.

Re:Recording video in the browser? Great... (2, Insightful)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 3 years ago | (#34060338)

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

Re:Recording video in the browser? Great... (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34060368)

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.

Re:Recording video in the browser? Great... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34061122)

Maybe they only listen to non-selfish demands?

At this rate (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34059214)

the only secure machine will be a Virtual machine.
That, and mostly because USB emulation is so far behind in most product checklists.

Can't wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34059614)

...to record things in formats no one can watch or listen too (except geeks). Mozilla needs to realize that OGG is never going to take off.

Not happy with Mozilla (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#34059688)

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.

Re:Not happy with Mozilla (1)

dejanc (1528235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34061442)

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).

Who is with me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34059762)

By the way: this new interface of Slashdot's really SUCKS!!! I don't mean just until you get used to it, I mean it really, genuinely, sucks. The former implementation was VASTLY superior.

Change for the sake of change is bad, Slashdot. Change for the sake of the corporation while ignoring your users is bad, Slashdot. This new interface is just plain bad, Slashdot.

I mean that very sincerely. I have been a regular user of Slashdot for years, and these recent changes are NOT good. Two thumbs down.\

Why? (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 3 years ago | (#34060344)

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?

EXPLETIVE DELETED (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34060378)

Where is the nuclear option? I mean when is the plugin to for ionizing radiation? You know, the murder plugin?

Finger on the pulse (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 3 years ago | (#34061290)

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

More Popular (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 3 years ago | (#34061326)

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

This is firing the first shot across the front bow (1)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34061368)

It's a serious challenge to the top browser.

You know, emacs.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?