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!

Yahoo May Build Its Own YouTube

Soulskill posted about 7 months ago | from the nine-years-and-billions-of-videos-late dept.

Yahoo! 162

An anonymous reader writes "Re/code reports that Yahoo will soon be stepping into the realm of internet video. They're seeking to take advantage of complaints from users who make videos for YouTube that they don't make enough money for their efforts. Yahoo has told content producers it can get them a bigger slice of the pie. 'For now, at least, Yahoo isn't talking about replicating YouTube's open platform, which lets users upload 100 hours of content every minute to the site. Instead, it is interested in cherry-picking particularly popular, more professional YouTube fare. Yahoo has also told some video owners that it can use its well-trafficked home page and other high-profile real estate to promote their clips on a non-exclusive basis. After a year, one source inside Yahoo said, it might open the platform up further.'"

cancel ×

162 comments

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

With blackjack and hookers! (5, Funny)

Curupira (1899458) | about 7 months ago | (#46609465)

...in fact, forget the Youtube thing.

Re:With blackjack and hookers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609693)

What's so interesting about blackjack?

Re:With blackjack and hookers! (2)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about 7 months ago | (#46609795)

You need something to pass the time during your refractory period.

Re:With blackjack and hookers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46610379)

The hookers.

Re:With blackjack and hookers! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46610047)

Have they asked themselves what problem they're trying to solve? Do we really need another YouTube?

Re:With blackjack and hookers! (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 7 months ago | (#46610079)

You forgot the booze!

Re: With blackjack and hookers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46610425)

Hootube?

ads (5, Informative)

stokessd (89903) | about 7 months ago | (#46609469)

They're seeking to take advantage of complaints from users who make videos for YouTube that they don't make enough money for their efforts.

Lets hope they put in even more ads. I really like the unskipable 30 second ads before some shitty 15 second video.

Re:ads (5, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 7 months ago | (#46609575)

it doesn't need more ads, just take less of a cut from them.

Google quite happily pays out a tiny amount from each ad and creams off billions. Yahoo is coming along to give us some competition, reduce its take, and overall we should be happy about that. The only one who loses is Google.

Competition is good in markets.

Re:ads (4, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#46609613)

I didn't know there was any lack of competition in the video serving market. Other video websites seem to find it hard to compete with YouTube. What makes Yahoo different? After all Yahoo hasn't been a force in anything much since the days when web-links were magenta and underlined, and most web page backgrounds were Windows grey.

Re:ads (4, Informative)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 7 months ago | (#46610033)

It was actually Motif gray since Mosaic was originally for X only.

Re: ads (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46610323)

Yahoo is patheyic. They have a shitty office in richardson texas where some talentless asshats sit and draw paychecks for nothing

Yahoo is the content king (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46610519)

and still in the game and makes billions off of their ads.

Re:ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609695)

Yes, but it won't be open to anyone, which defeats the entire point of a video sharing site. I have a YouTube account, but I won't let Google force me into creating a Google- account because it's crap. This idea from Yahoo sounds even worse than that.

Re:ads (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46610427)

Who still visits Yahoo? I stopped going there and even quit using it for my spam account when they did the whole fluffy redesign. Like slashdot, they walked away from their user base when their board said we need more ad space and a shittier looking site.

Re:ads (1)

NIK282000 (737852) | about 7 months ago | (#46609617)

Do you also like regular, free, user generated content? Because that's the only way you are going to get it.

Re:ads (2)

stokessd (89903) | about 7 months ago | (#46610311)

I'm actually OK with weeding out a crapload of user content. I don't need a 3 minute tutorial, with a 30 second intro, and 20 second outtro completely drenched in speed metal and cheesy effects to show me something that could have been typed out in three sentences of text.

I've had a free regular and, I've been told, very helpful website with no advertising (other than my own services) for many years now. There would still be useful content on the web without ads. There was when it was starting.

i'm just old, so get off my lawn.

Sheldon

Re:ads (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 7 months ago | (#46609929)

The adds need to be in the form of a banner on the bottom of the video... or adds on the left or right of the video.

I agree that video ads are unacceptable.

Re:ads (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 7 months ago | (#46610003)

Most people are okay with them. The alternative is....nothing. This Yahoo site will still have the ads but they're going to cherry pick the content and pay a little better. I don't see where it's really any improvement for most people.

Re:ads (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 7 months ago | (#46609993)

There are ads on YouTube?

Re:ads (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46610441)

Equally an alternative would be to actually make a Decent Dynamic Site, something that nobody seems to care about wanting to make despite ALL the good shit we have in JavaScript now, and it actually works fast in all browsers that matter. (that includes IE9+!)

Seriously, it isn't that hard to make a good site where there is a common side or top navigation with all the other content loading below it, then have the ads in there that just rotate every minute or so.
Downright deny flash ads, image ads and text ads only, no abusively flashy gifs either, absolutely no popups or popunders, and you have a winner right there.
I pretty much only block abusive ads and flash ads like that because they are awful. But everything else I let through because they aren't total dicks that want to destroy your computer just so you'd buy a drink. (think it is safe to say I also block malware distributors as well!)

Build the webpage IN CODE, do NOT add all the DOM elements individually to the page one-by-one. Why the hell do people do that? It is slow as hell, the DOM is slow as hell, stop it damn it, DOM updates play havoc with a webpage. Write the page in a variable / object first, then append it as a child element after everything is done. It is CONSIDERABLY faster.
I know this personally when I wanted to make an old-style tile game. Problem, div backgrounds weren't scaling with size in some instances, so I had to resort to images. Regardless, I added well over a thousand tiles to a webpage, one by one, insanely slow. Another version of it years later, I wrote the page in another elements innerHTML before committing it to the page, so much faster. Note that I also tested it on the same browser I had years ago (I keep many major versions around)

And then there is Good Coding Standards, erase data you no longer need to hold in your webpages. Kill event handlers if you don't need them.
Don't make redundant CSS (like ID freaks or class-freaks that give everything identities when they do NOT NEED THEM when you can easily just travel down the DOM tree one by one because elements are unique, or something like that)
Don't use horrible libraries with pointless bloat, optimize them, get rid of crap that never gets used.
Say "fuck you" to semantics and syntax nerds and don't use quotes around values if they aren't needed. Don't use semicolons if not needed. Don't use anything unless it is needed in fact. Web browsers have been designed to be flexible and shit, take advantage of that fact. All of them pretty much adhere to the same loose coding styles like that. (IE has some problems with comments in older versions, but that is pointless to care about since nobody cares about some office nerd with IE5.5, printing from a printing press and is wearing clothes from the stone age, they aren't the target market)
Don't Do Global.
Try not to abuse Objects too much because they are oddly still quite slow in JavaScript compared to direct variable access. If you must use objects, and more so with loops, store those in a temporary variable each time and reference that rather than the variable. It is noticeably faster when you are dealing with even 100 nodes, never mind 500, or 1000

And finally, of course, for all those tards that think JavaScript is da devil, redirect them to a no-js version of a page with an iframed ad that has that one tag that refreshes the page.
Don't bother trying to stop adblockers. It will only piss them off and make them not come back. They will only make up a small percentage of losses.
You can ask nicely, stating you only accept Good Ads and don't do any dodgy stuff, but don't stop them.
.
There we go. A Good Website. Shame we are speaking about Yahoo. Haven't they been stuck in the 90s since the 90s?

I'd love for another professional video site to come in to the market for independent groups.
Hell, I'd love for Youtube to completely die forever, but that is for another post.

Re:ads (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 7 months ago | (#46610759)

Even better, when I want to watch a movie trailer or funny commercial, I have to watch an ad first. So, I have to watch an ad to watch an ad. Yo dawg.

Re:ads (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 7 months ago | (#46610785)

They're seeking to take advantage of complaints from users who make videos for YouTube that they don't make enough money for their efforts.

Lets hope they put in even more ads. I really like the unskipable 30 second ads before some shitty 15 second video.

Run a HOSTS file (Howdy apk), and use Tcpview www.sysinternals.com (Microsoft), easier HTTPNetworkSniffer www.nirsoft.net there may be better (wireshark is too much overhead) but these work for me.

Find where the ad is coming from and block it, if that doesn't work, I'll just download the video, it comes without any filler.

Ooh, me, me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609497)

Yatube!

Re:Ooh, me, me! (4, Interesting)

flyneye (84093) | about 7 months ago | (#46609643)

Yahoob! Roll a doob, squeeze her boobs, gonna veg on the intertube!
Hey, lookout , here comes the lube, Microsoft hosting pr0n on a Bling Redtube!
Out of the grave, here comes it sista, hosting world access TV is Alta Vista.
Ibeen had to watch more ads, faster dates who masturbate on Iphone webcam.
They got you hooked, you always look, youve forgotten how to read a book.
To sit and dream and often wonder, to shit and smell and fart like thunder,
in your hand a mangled book, those days are gone, dont be mistook.
For now your droid does all the work and wipes your butt, while you jerk.

Re:Ooh, me, me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609793)

Yahoob!

Yahub!

Re:Ooh, me, me! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609819)

And Yaboob! for the adult section.

If it's only for professionals (2)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46609517)

If it's only for established professional video publishers, it's not really YouTube as much as Hulu. Or perhaps Yahoo has the right idea to fill the gap between YouTube and Hulu for the strongest YouTube Partners.

Re:If it's only for professionals (4, Interesting)

TWX (665546) | about 7 months ago | (#46609791)

Sounds to me that it's more like Blip.tv, Vimeo, or perhaps Funny or Die, than Hulu.

I don't expect it to work because I don't expect enough content to be on it to justify my going there to look at random content when there aren't enough contributors. I generally only find myself going to non-Youtube video sites when someone sends me a link to a video that's on one of those sites, not to browse or search myself. That may well be because of their interfaces not making it as easy to find the content I want in the first place or to find like-items to what I'm currently viewing, but for whatever reason, Youtube has the content and the way to find it better than the other video sites at the moment.

I wish Yahoo well, don't get me wrong, but we'll just have to wait and see if they actually manage to make something or if this is just another, "Me Too!" moment.

Non-exclusive big-name videos = internet graveyard (2)

default luser (529332) | about 7 months ago | (#46610105)

I agree that you have to start at the bottom and build a community if you want to build a solid following. Big name titles mean people will stop in, and forget the place even exists once the video is done playing. I know I did that for years with anything aside from Youtube.

Not only are they aiming at the wrong end of the spectrum here , the non-exclusive video hosting means that nobody will bother linking to their copy versus the Youtube version. They're both free to watch, but Youtube has the advantage of name and platform support. Why would you make your blog or Facebook post of a video *less accessible* to your readers when Youtube is more widely available as a native app on cheaper mobile devices?

if yahoo builds a youtube... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609555)

They might be able to attract a higher quality of video by making the barrier to uploading higher. On Google's youtube, anyone can upload anything and so the quality is often very low but yahoo could go a different direction to a higher value strata for their youtube. Sort of the premium segment like Apple does vs Android.

Could work if they do it right but a lot of tube sites have started up and failed so it is a lot of risk for them.

Re:if yahoo builds a youtube... (1)

stokessd (89903) | about 7 months ago | (#46610321)

Sort of the premium segment like Apple does vs Android.

When I think premium, I think Yahoo. :D

Good luck! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609557)

Good luck to them, they'll certainly need it.

Bigger slice of smaller pie (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609585)

They'll probably be offering a bigger slice of a smaller pie. It might not be such a great deal for the content providers. I applaud them for trying though. If they can successfully cherry-pick the best of YouTube, that's an intriguing idea. It reminds me of how NBC incubates comics. Google might come up with a better approach. NBC looks like it could never really figure out how to capitalize on its incubation capabilities. After the Letterman fiasco, they just got really paranoid about letting talent go to another network. This strategy doesn't seem to be helping them. Instead of Jay Leno filling in for Johnny, we got re-runs. What did I do when that was happening? Switch to their old nemesis, Letterman who was also in re-runs against their re-run; but it was material I'd never seen before. So, NBC lost me during those 15 minutes before I turned out the lights and went to bed. They would have had me for those 15 minutes if they had been willing to incubate another guy and not worry about him going to another network.

I'll bite your hand off for it (4, Informative)

The123king (2395060) | about 7 months ago | (#46609591)

If it means i don't have to deal with Google+

Re:I'll bite your hand off for it (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46609647)

Yahoo has its own problems with registration. In order to make a Yahoo account, you have to give Yahoo your valid cell phone number. Without receiving the verification message that Yahoo sends, you can't use your account. This means you have to buy a cell phone and subscribe to a plan that includes SMS.

Re:I'll bite your hand off for it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609703)

Yeah, right there you have the biggest problem with yahoo. It's like a mall with a bouncer at the door saying "give me your cell number" and if you don't comply, you aren't allowed in. Completely ridiculous way to run a website. Unless your goal is to run it into the ground. No, that can't be it. No one would do that. Well, unless they were sent over from the #1 rival to do that. Yeah, that would fit.

Yahoo not only site requiring cell subscription (2)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46609743)

Yeah, right there you have the biggest problem with yahoo.

It's not only Yahoo. Facebook reportedly has a similar "verification" process [facebook.com] to enable extra privileges, and some sites using Facebook login require this verification, such as AOL's The Huffington Post. So does Google, where the privileges include Gmail and uploading longer videos to YouTube.

Re:I'll bite your hand off for it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609767)

Actually that's the direction a lot of the web is doing now, towards verified accounts. Like it or not it seems unavoidable because it is the only way they can cut down on abusive posts and they have to do that to attract the mass audience.

Verification is the new hot thing. Yeah I don't liek it either but that's not gonna stop it from happening.

Re:I'll bite your hand off for it (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46609807)

So if multiple people living under one roof share a phone, such as a POTS phone or a wireless home phone [att.com] , how are they all supposed to get verified?

Re:I'll bite your hand off for it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609887)

So if multiple people living under one roof share a phone, such as a POTS phone or a wireless home phone, how are they all supposed to get verified?

Tough to be them.

Re:I'll bite your hand off for it (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 7 months ago | (#46610011)

It's off to Usenet for them.

Re:I'll bite your hand off for it (1)

Mantrid42 (972953) | about 7 months ago | (#46610403)

Simple. Set up a Google Voice account.

bigger slice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609595)

bigger slice of a small pie vs small slice of a big pie.

Good (4, Informative)

gigaherz (2653757) | about 7 months ago | (#46609599)

Google is increasingly trying harder to get me to use my real name while browsing/commenting on YouTube, even though I have repeatedly stated that I do not want to do so. The sooner there's less abusive competition, the better.

Re:Good (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 7 months ago | (#46610069)

That's the trend, to tie you to your comments directly and to your marketing preferences as well. That way they can sell your likes and dislikes to the highest bidder and use your "recommendations" to push products without your consent. Frankly the d-anonymizing of the Internet is a bad thing and gives people many more tools to categorize you.

Re:Good (1)

jez9999 (618189) | about 7 months ago | (#46610687)

Yeah, and Yahoo! are the perfect guys to be less abusive.

Ads on Youtube are getting obnoxious (4, Informative)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about 7 months ago | (#46609607)

For my own experience the quantity and length of ads on Youtube has reached the tipping point where I start dreading even going to Youtube anymore. It's fine to see a 5 second ad for a video I know I will enjoy, but the ads on the 'speculative' videos where I'm just hopping around looking for something interesting to watch are beyond ridiculous. The other day I watched 10 crappy videos in a row, all of which had at least a 5 second-then-skip ad at the beginning, and one with a must-watch 15 second ad. That totaled one minute of ads for what turned out to be zero seconds of entertainment.

Re:Ads on Youtube are getting obnoxious (2)

corezz (1603659) | about 7 months ago | (#46609639)

Why don't you use AdBlock+ like the rest of us? I didn't know ads existed on the net until you brought it up just now.

AdBlock = 'Souled-Out' + INFERIOR (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609707)

ClarityRay (look it up) will end adblock, & Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )

APK

P.S.=> * "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

** "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

*** "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Re:AdBlock = 'Souled-Out' + INFERIOR (1)

TWX (665546) | about 7 months ago | (#46609811)

Wow.

I'm so glad that BBSes and Usenet lacked the ability to have bold text when I was fourteen...

Re:AdBlock = 'Souled-Out' + INFERIOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609873)

If that's the best you've got apk must be right about hosts vs adblock.

Re:AdBlock = 'Souled-Out' + INFERIOR (1)

TWX (665546) | about 7 months ago | (#46609933)

That particular use of bold made reading his post quite disjointed. His presentation negated the making of his point regardless of validity.

Re:AdBlock = 'Souled-Out' + INFERIOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46610001)

Obviously you can't disprove apk's on hosts files superiority over adblock. ghostery, requestpolicy and the fact it fixes faults in dns too with less complexity, redundancy, and less moving parts he extolls here in 17 points http://start64.com/index.php/6... [start64.com] so you can spout your arbitrary opinion all day long but facts apk used work where your off topic crap doesn't against them. Every time he challenges his naysayers to disprove those points, they do what you do. Troll b.s.

Re:AdBlock = 'Souled-Out' + INFERIOR (3, Informative)

geminidomino (614729) | about 7 months ago | (#46610177)

Actually, it's trivial to do so.

Running more than one computer? You have to manually edit the hosts file on every one.

Concerned with futureproofing? Google has completely bypassed the hosts file on Android 4.4. I expect the same "feature" to appear on Windows either in the next SP, or the next version.

Hosts files are sequential lists of entries: completely unsuited for random access.

Obviously, the superior solution is a local DNS configured to return localhost/your favorite cat video site/your favorite porn site/whatever for all of those scumbag domains.

APK is just caught in the 80s.

Wrong - dusting your "points" easily... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46610535)

1.) Moving hosts around network nodes/workstations = cake via logon scripts OR even a centrally located server scheduling updates via scheduled tasks - take your pick, either way, it's simple.

2.) "Future-Proofing"? You mean GOOGLE's SO AFRAID of hosts they REMOVED it (& it's a std. PART of the IP stack on everything else)...

3.) Random access? WTF would you NEED IT FOR??

4.) HERE IS THE BIG ONE:

DNS != Superior - DO YOU KNOW HOW OFTEN DNS GETS "REDIRECTED"?

a.) Look up the Kaminsky flaw (& even though there IS A PATCH?? Most ISPs (like 99%) HAVEN'T IMPLEMENTED THE PATCH, due to difficulties with MX records setup iirc).

b.) Do you ALSO know how many "rogue" DNS servers there are that malware use?

c.) Ever heard of "FastFlux" &/or Dynamic DNS using botnets too??

BOTH take advantage of DNS flaws rampantly (in easily being redirected to FALSE look-alike hijack sites).

APK

P.S.=> I *may* be caught in the 80's according to you, but, you've been CAUGHT FLAT-FOOTED BEATEN, point-by-so-called-"point" of yours above...

&

You STILL HAVEN'T DISPROVEN 17 points I list here in favor of hosts, giving users of them more speed, security, reliaiblity, & even anonymity @ all, whatsoever -> http://start64.com/index.php/6... [start64.com]

Re:AdBlock = 'Souled-Out' + INFERIOR (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 7 months ago | (#46610641)

If you must know, we're actually quite content just to sit here, watch you talk about yourself in the 3rd person, and continue munching our popcorn.

I'm content with YOU, "Forrest"... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46610667)

As "you & yours" (quit projecting - they're ALL you) "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" from validly technically disproving the 17 points I posted here showing how hosts files give users more speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity, enumerated here -> http://start64.com/index.php/6... [start64.com]

* :)

(Additionally: There's NO QUESTION Hosts files do MORE than browser addons do & from a faster + more efficient level of operations (ring 0/rpl 0/kernelmode vs. SLOWER usermode/ring 3/rpl 3 layered on, more complex & REDUNDANT browser addons with their message passing overheads too...)).

APK

P.S.=> Yes, YOU Fail (& yours, all YOU of course, lol) + You make this (& you just KNOW that I've just GOTTA say it, now don't you? AH, but of COURSE you do) just

"too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'"

For me, & you make ME look GOOD - & yourselves, by way of comparison? Well... lol, "not so good"...

... apk

Blooming hosts files (2)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46609897)

I found your mention of ClarityRay interesting. I wonder what they mean by "serving of customized ads to ad-blocked users", especially when people block ads by Content-type like I do. For example, a request for a Flash object on a domain where I haven't whitelisted Flash Player doesn't even get as far as DNS. This means site with text and image articles can show text and image ads, and sites with video articles (such as YouTube) can show video ads. However:

Hosts do more with less (1 file) at a faster level

That'd be true if the hosts file processor in operating systems were actually efficient. I proposed an implementation involving a Bloom filter on my page about efficient implementation of a DNS blacklist [pineight.com] . But in the operating systems deployed on most deployed PCs, a linear search through a multi-megabyte hosts file takes a while.

(ring 0)

Whether a resolver runs in supervisor mode (ring 0) or user mode (ring 3) makes little difference. It's about how efficient the resolution is, and most resolutions take longer than a context switch. There's no guarantee that it actually runs in ring 0; microkernels hand off hostname resolution to a user-space process. One example of this across multiple platforms is running a recursive resolver on localhost. Another is the possibility of storing the hosts file on a file system implemented in userspace (such as FUSE, Samba, or the like). What this ultimately means is that a well-coded user-space resolver can query a hosts file faster than a popular kernel's built-in linear search can.

Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads and hardcodes favorite sites - faster than remote DNS)

One problem with hardcoding favorite sites comes when the IP address for a favorite site changes. That's what the expiry time on each record in a DNS zone was supposed to fix.

Wrong & Face FACTS (adblock does less)... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609917)

1,) Hosts are processed by the IP stack itself in a FAR faster level of privelege (& the way I do it with LARGE hosts is to omit the use of the faulty local DNS clientside cache usermode service in Windows, saving CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O it uses in SLOWER usermode no less, & substitute the use of the KERNELMODE FASTER subsystems (local kernelmode diskcache + TCP/IP)).

2,) I do so with less moving parts & room for breakdown

3.) The IP stack's also written in a FASTER language (especially vs. Adblock & other browser addons), & runs in a FAR faster level of privelege too

4.) I put my favorite sites @ the TOP of the custom hosts file (where I spend 9%%++ of my time online), so it equals OR EXCEEDS indexing the faulty with large hosts files slower usermode clientside dns cache in Windows.

5.) The REST of the speed & efficiency comes from not only kernelmode FASTER subsystems @ work on it, but also the fact I BLOCK OUT ADBANNERS (saves up to 40++% of sites, like this one, to download + process) with hardcoding those favs too (faster than looking up hostname/domainname to IP address resolutions, by far)

ABOVE ALL ELSE - FACE FACTS:

Adblock = dead vs. ClarityRay, & hosts do FAR MORE for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity than AdBlock OR other browser addons... by far.

APK

P.S.=> Do the math (binary search pattern on 2-3 million entries = the 24 favorites I keep in my hosts @ the top of it, so seeks for where I spend 95%++ of my time online = or beat indexing I lost... apk

Question: What subsystem runs this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609941)

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services\Tcpip\ServiceProvider]
"Class"=dword:00000008
"DnsPriority"=dword:00000007
"HostsPriority"=dword:00000005
"LocalPriority"=dword:00000006
"NetbtPriority"=dword:00000008
"Name"="TCP/IP"

?

,b>* ALSO NOTE WHAT IS 1st RESOLVER IT USES TOO (hosts)... cached into RAM (for speed).

APK

P.S.=> Answer = the LAST BOLDED entry, & WHAT ring of privelege does it run in? Ring 0/RPL 0/kernelmode (pnp driver design)...apk
BOLDED

As to your LAST line? Cake... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609957)

I make it so, via this program of mine http://start64.com/index.php/6... [start64.com]

* :)

So, IF a site changes its IP address (usually due to host provider switches, which is RARE, & GOOD SITES LET YOU KNOW they are doing so too, no less)? No biggie... when I update my hosts file using my app, my fav. sites are ALSO updated, fresh, too!

APK

P.S.=> & there ya go... FACT:I do FAR MORE with LESS (vs. weak crippled & "SOULED-OUT" so-callled INFERIOR 'competitors' do in browser addons as well as SHORING UP DNS FAULTS), by far - & CLARITYRAY isn't going to stop hosts files users - but it WILL STOP ADBLOCK (& that, IS that)... apk

Think about this tepples... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46610085)

" But in the operating systems deployed on most deployed PCs, a linear search through a multi-megabyte hosts file takes a while." - by tepples (727027) on Saturday March 29, 2014 @11:58AM (#46609897) Homepage

It's done in RAM - top speed (for me, ring 0 kernelmode diskcache)

&

My favorite sites placement ASSURES equality OR SUPERIORITY of seek with indexing (that I lose since the Windows USERMODE SLOW clientside faulty dnscache service is off, substituting in using TCP/IP & kernelmode diskcache instead - SAVING the cpu cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O that the faulty usermode slower dnscache service used too - BONUS)

It works: Mainly since, @ most, I do 24 seeks (at most mind you) of my FAV. SITES I keep @ the top of hosts WHERE I KNOW I SPEND A GOOD 95%++ OF MY TIME ONLINE...

(& the diskcache doesn't sort the file, it leaves it be as is - so, I do indeed equal OR EXCEED what a sorted & indexed seek would use, but I save what's WASTED there with large hosts in cpu, ram, & other forms of I/O + use FASTER SUBSYSTEMS to do the job of host-domain name resolution from memory)...

APK

P.S.=> Downside? Only when I MISS a lookup (negligible term in this equation - it's done @ speed of RAM)

Then I use OpenDNS (better secured & filtered) as my lookup for an external DNS server!

Plus - & my MILLIONS of blocked entries?

No biggie - they're KNOWN BAD sites/servers/hosts-domains, & I never INTENDED TO REACH THEM @ ALL IN THE 1st place - they're intentionally blocked...

The rest of the speed comes from LOCAL in memory resolves of where I spend MOST of my time online, laid out in a fashion that equals or beats sorted & indexed entries - plus, I make load & line-by-line PARSE of hosts faster with my app - I change the LARGER & SLOWER 127.0.0.1 blocking IP address to a SMALLER & FASTER form (0.0.0.0) for yet MORE speed & efficiency too... apk

AdBlock = INFERIOR + 'Souled-Out' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46610565)

ClarityRay (look it up) will end adblock, & Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )

APK

P.S.=> I reposted this AGAIN... why? Simple:

I did since the "best you had" was effete unjustifiable downmods of the last time I posted it here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]

(Yet ,nobody VALIDLY disproves my points on hosts either, "funny that", eh? Not)

... apk

Re:Ads on Youtube are getting obnoxious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46610599)

I do 90% of my youtubing a cell/tablet and Adblock on mobile sucks.

Adblock = INFERIOR + "Souled-Out' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46610557)

ClarityRay (look it up) will end adblock, & Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )

APK

P.S.=> I reposted this AGAIN... why? Simple:

I did since the "best you had" was effete unjustifiable downmods of the last time I posted it here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]

(Yet ,b>nobody VALIDLY disproves my points on hosts either, "funny that", eh? Not)

... apk

Holy 2005, Batman! (2)

kimvette (919543) | about 7 months ago | (#46609651)

Holy 2005, Batman!

Google has a 9 year lead in this and they've been doing it better than anyone. How does Yahoo expect to compete in this space?

Honestly the one company I'm surprised HASN'T entered this space is Microsoft because their M.O. lately hasn't been to improve their core product offerings and give customers what they want, but to get into market segments where they see OTHERS succeeding, only to fail miserably (see: MP3 players, search engines) - even in cases where they once dominated the market then let it languish without further development because it hadn't hit critical mass yet (see: PDA/multimedia devices and Smartphones).

Re:Holy 2005, Batman! (3, Informative)

rainwater (530678) | about 7 months ago | (#46609665)

They can compete by offering better revenue for more high quality content. If you read the article, they are not trying to build a "Youtube". It is more like Hulu for web only videos.

Re:Holy 2005, Batman! (2)

FlyingGuy (989135) | about 7 months ago | (#46610381)

This is really simple. They have the infrastructure, they have the bandwidth. There are a lot of really quality content generators out there that Google just rapes. Here is a really cogent explanation ( ironically on You Tube ) by Jack Conte of Pomplamoose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

Really listen to what he is talking about and you can understand how Yahoo could just kick Google's ass in this space.

Re:Holy 2005, Batman! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46610447)

A nine year lead and "doing it better than anyone" -- whatever that means -- buys Youtube very little in terms of long-term stability. It's the internet: You're better off betting on any particular site's demise than its long-term success, especially when that site has nothing significantly unique about it other than its current popularity. Youtube has no moat, as Warren Buffet would call it, and my n=1 is that more and more people posting videos are using other sites.

Re:Holy 2005, Batman! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46610475)

Microsoft are so so bad at advertising, though. They have failed time and time again to get a good grasp on the markets.

They have some fairly good back-end stuff though, so if they were to make it, They Would Come, and it'd make them loads of money.
I actually am surprised they haven't done it yet.

People are hating Youtube more and more as time passes, just like they are with Facebook.
The next Big Thing of social video sites, if they could marry them both in a way that doesn't upset the user and gives them the freedom to be who or what they want, and let them upload in a nice safe environment, it could be a winner.
Microsoft has a good chance to do that, more so because they have good relationships with loads of large media players in the industry.

Problem is Microsoft would likely Xbox Live it up and ruin it rather than make the experience nice for people.

Copying your way to success (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609677)

I thought it was AOL who were all "Me too", but I guess Yahoo copied that as well.

Re:Copying your way to success (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | about 7 months ago | (#46609959)

AOL already has their own video streaming service set up, stream quality seems quite nice too ... no user videos though so no direct competition to youtube.

Complaints from complainers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609679)

"complaints from users who make videos for YouTube"
It sounds like these people who make videos "for" YouTube should take a closer look at their contract.

waaaaa, i uploaded content to a free video sharing site and didnt get paid enough. Get a job, you cunts.

Do the search giants offer job search? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46609723)

Anonymous Coward wrote:

Get a job, you cunts.

Does Yahoo or Google even offer effective search tools for video production jobs?

Re:Do the search giants offer job search? (1)

TWX (665546) | about 7 months ago | (#46609835)

No, but theatre-technical programs in post-secondary programs will most likely lead to that, plus then one actually gets training on things like set design, lighting, set-blocking, and other important things that most youtubers don't seem to account for...

In some ways I miss the days of Cable Access TV, when the relative scarcity of timeslots helped weed-out the absolute-worst content. It still may not have been great, but if you couldn't fill your fifteen-minute or half-hour timeslot with passable content then you lost your timeslot to someone that could.

Re:Do the search giants offer job search? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46610087)

theatre-technical programs in post-secondary programs will most likely lead to [job placement]

Any chance these programs can be done at least partly in the MOOC [wikipedia.org] format?

Re:Do the search giants offer job search? (1)

TWX (665546) | about 7 months ago | (#46610421)

Probably not. Television production is a trade. There's a lot more applied aspects to learn than there are theoretical aspects to learn in a classroom or via webcast, and a lot of it involves learning how to work as part of a team, which also does not work as part of a webcast.

so close! (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 7 months ago | (#46609687)

Anyone who makes a youtube clone with less ads and no stupid social-tie-in comment system will demolish youtube very quickly. Unfortunately, since it's Yahoo, they're incapable of doing that. They will screw it up epically.

Re:so close! (1)

corezz (1603659) | about 7 months ago | (#46609805)

Makes u wonder why other long-lived sites like Vimeo, DailyMotion, and maybe a hundred other me-too video sites havne't taken off since they have "less ads and no stupid social-tie-in comment system"? Just a curious question.

Re:so close! (1)

hendrips (2722525) | about 7 months ago | (#46610501)

I don't know about Vimeo, but it's been my experience that a several of these competing video sites actually have more annoying and intrusive ads, though no Google+, thank God. Maybe I've just been unlucky.

Re:so close! (1)

TWX (665546) | about 7 months ago | (#46609853)

There already are sites like Vimeo that don't have the social-tie-in. Obviously it's not working like you propose.

I'm just getting tired of all of the Youtubers constantly showing up on each other's channels for little more than self-promotion. Once in awhile is fine, but it seems like they're cross-pollinating in a giant Youtube circle-jerk and unless you're following all of them it gets rather old rather quickly.

Welcome (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#46609705)

I welcome them. YouTube needs a realistic competitor. Why I say realistic is because there are already a good bunch of similar video sites but they have hard time rivaling YouTube.

The YouTube support for both watchers and content creators is terrible. If there's a technical problem in the site, good luck contacting anyone. Same thing for video makers: your channel might get flagged as infringing (and thus closed) completely automatically, based on some random troll viewer doing the flagging maliciously. After that, sorting out the situation is rather painful.

Re:Welcome (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 7 months ago | (#46609907)

This is a youtube competitor like Crackle or Hulu is a competitor. It will fail if it wants to be Youtube, given the policies at Yahoo. This is more of a video commerce site for a curated few, not a place to throw up videos for the hell of it.

Re:Welcome (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 7 months ago | (#46610027)

This is not really a competitor. Considering what the price is for browsing youtube it's hard to imagine anything better.

Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609709)

When media bundles products it is fine. You google that, you youtube this, but when IE is bundled with Windows, it is a monopoly.

And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609725)

Who will go to yahoo to actually watch stuff?

This is a great idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609751)

What a great idea!

Next, they should try releasing an operating system, an office productivity suite, a social network, and maybe launch a console.

Hey Yahoo Just don't (1)

maliqua (1316471) | about 7 months ago | (#46609775)

Try to shove yahoo+ down our throats and it might work out for you

I pick Marissa (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46609863)

She did become CEO and redesign the logo.

It's got to be (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | about 7 months ago | (#46610059)

YahooTube

That is all

broadcast.com (1)

crow (16139) | about 7 months ago | (#46610077)

Why does Yahoo! need a new YouTube alternative when they already have Broadcast.com?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]

Riiight... (1)

Just Brew It! (636086) | about 7 months ago | (#46610141)

If their recent redesign of YahooGroups is any indication, this will be a massive train wreck. The overhaul of YahooGroups was definitely a case of "fixing" something that wasn't broken. I admin three long-standing fora on YahooGroups (one even dates all the way back to before the eGroups acquisition) and plan to migrate all of them off of their system. Randomly dropped members, members who want to be removed but can't be, and other stupid shit.

Replacement will be a hosted solution of my choosing, on a server I have more control over. I've had enough.

What we need is P2P (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46610245)

I would rather see YouTube get competition from peer to peer systems like Popcorn Time or Bittorrent Live.

Please destroy eBay, Yahoo! (2)

SethJohnson (112166) | about 7 months ago | (#46610291)

A long while ago Yahoo tried to compete with eBay offering YahooAuctions. Their heart wasn't in it, and they killed it off. The potential there was huge and because there is no competition, eBay has enjoyed enormous profits at the expense of anyone trying to sell stuff. The commission they take off every sale is huge. Yahoo could shave the commissions down just a bit and still make a healthy profit.

Oh, and it would be trivial for Yahoo to make a craigslist competitor. I wish they would. Heck, with flickr, they've already got the photo hosting set up. Users would be attracted by improved interface and excellent mobile buying and selling app. At present, Craigslist doesn't care about either of these things and deserves to be knocked off its laurels.

Anyone try to remain anonymous on Youtube? (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 7 months ago | (#46610315)

Google makes it REALLY hard to create accounts now that aren't tied to your real identity. Every time I try with nicknames and non-name handles, I get told there's something suspicious about my account (yeah right) and that they're blocking it.

If Yahoo doesn't try to make it a social tracking node (like the Google+ crap ruining the comments section), pays out well for hits, and provides a better interface for screening out the crap (low rated videos that get millions of hits based on a good teaser, duplicates, etc.) I think they stand a great chance of seeing a ton of videos migrate.

Archive.org (4, Informative)

ikhider (2837593) | about 7 months ago | (#46610397)

I prefer to post on Archive.org. The site can support different resolutions and can even run on Libre-based operating systems. Also, you don't have to worry about regional restrictions. For example, I may send someone a Youtube link to a friend in Germany, but she cannot view it due to region restrictions. However, an Archive.org link will work. I would prefer Archive.org as the place for original, independent video content. No ads, no stress.

It will be called... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46610671)

YahTube, mon!

JennaMarbles (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 7 months ago | (#46610857)

Ars also has an article saying Yahoo maybe poaching Youtube "Stars" like Jenna Marbles.
http://arstechnica.com/busines... [arstechnica.com]

Bachelor of Science in Psychology, and later attended Boston University for her Masters of Education in Sport Psychology and Counseling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org] she's no slouch, and a sense of humor that's just enjoyable.

I first came across her in the video "How to trick people into thinking you're good looking" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com] and it surprised me how decent it was (as opposed to most videos).

The bigger surprise? She's making ton's of money from Youtube ($4.3 million at least) - good for her. http://www.celebritynetworth.c... [celebritynetworth.com]

Youtube has a video they put together "Rewind YouTube Style 2012" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com] done to the video of PSY - Gangnam Style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com] (working on 2 Billion views , mucho dinero). And where I came across FreddieW ($1.8 million) another good sense of humor.

Yahoo has a long climb to even become seen as a video source, It went from the next big thing to unnoticed over night. Youtube has become huge and an unexpected source of income to many. Me? I still won't allow ads on my videos, that any aren't being being viewed is irrelevant :}

disclaimer
I don't subscribe to any youtube channels, apparently that's a good thing, reading the comments on the Ars article you can't view Youtube, or comment to a video without first going through Google +, I can (it can't be that hard).

And more importantly, I expect kick backs from all mentioned above.

A great idea, then doom it to fail. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46610995)

If Yahoo did stuff different than YouTube, and backed the users, it could get popular. Content ID is a disaster on YouTube. I am surprised no one has truly taken advantage of that system.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?