subject:"There's a \"video war\" going on, and we users are the victims"


Mason83 wrote:

On 27/08/2017 17:26, null wrote:


So you got that test video I referenced to play before it was removed by
the user, so you were able to get that info from the stats for geeks,
right?

Correct.


In my case, that video, and others that won't play DO show some
geek info, but the line labelled "Mime type" shows no data.
The videos that DO play DO show that kind of data.

Can you play this old video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HtMHmyKZa0

It's video/mp4; codecs="avc1.4d401e" like the one you posted.

Regards.
Yes, I can play it, but the "Info for nerds" says "Mime type : video 
webm  codecs='vp8.0 vorbis".


Now why would that differ from what you get, I wonder. One possibility 
is that the Youtube error page seems to hint, although without making it 
explicitly clear, that Youtube may provide the video in one of several 
ways depending on what the viewer has available at their end. Do you 
think that this accounts for the different in the details that we each get?

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

2017-08-27 Thread WaltS48


Mason83 wrote:

On 27/08/2017 17:26, null wrote:


So you got that test video I referenced to play before it was removed by
the user, so you were able to get that info from the stats for geeks,
right?


Correct.


In my case, that video, and others that won't play DO show some
geek info, but the line labelled "Mime type" shows no data.
The videos that DO play DO show that kind of data.


Can you play this old video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HtMHmyKZa0

It's video/mp4; codecs="avc1.4d401e" like the one you posted.

Regards.



That video plays for me.

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:51.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/51.0 
SeaMonkey/2.48 ID:20170706221156 CSet: 
00de3083c5db2fcb1544d5f9edd8bdae5e039b03


Adblock Plus 2.9.1
ChatZilla 0.9.93
DOM Inspector 2.0.16.1-signed
Lightning 5.3b2
Nightly Tester Tools 3.10
PDF Viewer 1.6.304
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

2017-08-27 Thread Mason83

On 27/08/2017 17:26, null wrote:

> So you got that test video I referenced to play before it was removed by 
> the user, so you were able to get that info from the stats for geeks, 
> right?

Correct.

> In my case, that video, and others that won't play DO show some
> geek info, but the line labelled "Mime type" shows no data.
> The videos that DO play DO show that kind of data.

Can you play this old video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HtMHmyKZa0

It's video/mp4; codecs="avc1.4d401e" like the one you posted.

Regards.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims


Mason83 wrote:

On 26/08/2017 16:24, null wrote:


Mason83 wrote:


That's an MP4 container with H.264-encoded video.
They don't specify the audio codec, I'll bet AAC.

That "test" video at the above link has unfortunately been removed by
the user.

When you right click on the settings button on the Youtube window, you
get an option for geeks which when selected gives info about the video.
However, it doesn't seem to give the sort of info you cite above. Where
did you get that from?

Yeah, it was in the stats for geeks.

Mime Type: video/mp4; codecs="avc1.4d401e"

mp4 means an MPEG-4 Part 14 container.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4_Part_14

avc1.4d401e means H.264 Main Profile Level 3
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16363167/html5-video-tag-codecs-attribute

Have a look at that page, it seems pretty nifty.
http://www.leanbackplayer.com/test/h5mt.html

I wonder what kind of sniffing it performs.

Regards.
So you got that test video I referenced to play before it was removed by 
the user, so you were able to get that info from the stats for geeks, 
right? In my case, that video, and others that won't play DO show some 
geek info, but the line labelled "Mime type" shows no data. The videos 
that DO play DO show that kind of data.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims


Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

null wrote:


Paul B. Gallagher wrote:


The term "open source library for working with video on the web"
is being equated with the term "HTML video player." In the
simplest possible terms, such a "library" is also called a
"player."

Definition of "software library" from The Free Dictionary: "a
collection of standard routines used in computer programs, usually
stored as an executable file."

So the sentence really isn't ungrammatical or ambiguous. You just
have to know how to parse it.


Yes, as you say, in the "simplest possible terms", but sometimes
"simple" becomes "simplistic", and therefore less than clear. Saying
that you just have to know how to parse it is like saying that you
just have to understand written English! With the sort of stuff I'm
talking about in this thread, you shouldn't have to parse and
syntactically analyze, the meaning should be clear without having to
resort to re-reading, cogitation, etc. Don't want to make too much of
that one single sentence above, but I've gotta say that I've found
the web overflowing with masses of stuff about this or that aspect of
computer and web technology and new developments in these areas, and
that a huge proportion of it begs more questions than it answers
because it fails to comply with even the most basic principles of
technical or expository writing, or even with basic English grammar
and syntax. Given that much of it is there for the benefit of
non-techie, ordinary users rather than geeks, coders, developers, or
whatever who would know a lot more, this is very frustrating. ...


Yeah, well, two more points:

1) The vast majority of people on this forum are not professional 
writers, so you have to adjust your expectations.
Perhaps I should have made it explicitly clear - although I though it 
would have been clear from the context of what I said - that I am NOT 
referring to what people write in fora like this newsgroup or others 
that I subscribe to. I was referring to what you find on websites.
2) It's perfectly normal in any technical field to encounter 
specialized jargon, and it would be unnatural and also difficult to 
follow if posters avoided that jargon.

Again, NOT talking about posters, as I point out above.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims


Chris Ilias wrote:

On 2017-08-26 8:06 AM, null wrote:

But getting back to the problem that I can't use SM or FF to watch 
video presented with Youtube's HTML5 Player, people say that I don't 
have the necessary codecs or that my XP OS doesn't have the 
necessary. Well, my Chrome browser on my XP machine DOES play those 
videos. If Chrome has something in it that does that running on XP, 
why doesn't FF and SM? Now, I can think of various possible answers 
to that question, but i can't identify the correct answer.



The following also applies to SeaMonkey:

 

"[10] To avoid patent issues, support for MPEG 4, H.264 and MP3 is not 
built directly into Firefox. Instead it relies on support from the OS 
or hardware (the hardware also needs to be able to support the profile 
used to encode the video, in the case of MP4). Firefox supports these 
formats on the following platforms: Windows Vista+ since Firefox 22.0, 
Android since Firefox 20.0, Firefox OS since Firefox 15.0, Linux since 
Firefox 26.0 (relies on GStreamer codecs) and OS X 10.7 since Firefox 
35.0."


Thanks indeed for the above link to that stuff - hadn't come across it 
myself, very interesting but also very complex, still reading and slowly 
trying to get my head around it. thanks again.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

2017-08-27 Thread Mason83

On 26/08/2017 17:08, Chris Ilias wrote:

> The following also applies to SeaMonkey:
> 
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Supported_media_formats
>
> "[10] To avoid patent issues, support for MPEG 4, H.264 and MP3 is not 
> built directly into Firefox. Instead it relies on support from the OS or 
> hardware (the hardware also needs to be able to support the profile used 
> to encode the video, in the case of MP4). Firefox supports these formats 
> on the following platforms: Windows Vista+ since Firefox 22.0, Android 
> since Firefox 20.0, Firefox OS since Firefox 15.0, Linux since Firefox 
> 26.0 (relies on GStreamer codecs) and OS X 10.7 since Firefox 35.0."

How does the Cisco OpenH264 plug-in factor in?

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/open-h264-plugin-firefox
https://github.com/cisco/openh264/

Looks like OpenH264 was initially used only for WebRTC,
but later also for other web contents?

Regards.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

2017-08-26 Thread Mason83

On 26/08/2017 16:24, null wrote:

> Mason83 wrote:
>
>> That's an MP4 container with H.264-encoded video.
>> They don't specify the audio codec, I'll bet AAC.
>
> That "test" video at the above link has unfortunately been removed by 
> the user.
> 
> When you right click on the settings button on the Youtube window, you 
> get an option for geeks which when selected gives info about the video. 
> However, it doesn't seem to give the sort of info you cite above. Where 
> did you get that from?

Yeah, it was in the stats for geeks.

Mime Type: video/mp4; codecs="avc1.4d401e"

mp4 means an MPEG-4 Part 14 container.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4_Part_14

avc1.4d401e means H.264 Main Profile Level 3
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16363167/html5-video-tag-codecs-attribute

Have a look at that page, it seems pretty nifty.
http://www.leanbackplayer.com/test/h5mt.html

I wonder what kind of sniffing it performs.

Regards.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

2017-08-26 Thread Paul B. Gallagher


null wrote:


Paul B. Gallagher wrote:


The term "open source library for working with video on the web"
is being equated with the term "HTML video player." In the
simplest possible terms, such a "library" is also called a
"player."

Definition of "software library" from The Free Dictionary: "a
collection of standard routines used in computer programs, usually
stored as an executable file."

So the sentence really isn't ungrammatical or ambiguous. You just
have to know how to parse it.


Yes, as you say, in the "simplest possible terms", but sometimes
"simple" becomes "simplistic", and therefore less than clear. Saying
that you just have to know how to parse it is like saying that you
just have to understand written English! With the sort of stuff I'm
talking about in this thread, you shouldn't have to parse and
syntactically analyze, the meaning should be clear without having to
resort to re-reading, cogitation, etc. Don't want to make too much of
that one single sentence above, but I've gotta say that I've found
the web overflowing with masses of stuff about this or that aspect of
computer and web technology and new developments in these areas, and
that a huge proportion of it begs more questions than it answers
because it fails to comply with even the most basic principles of
technical or expository writing, or even with basic English grammar
and syntax. Given that much of it is there for the benefit of
non-techie, ordinary users rather than geeks, coders, developers, or
whatever who would know a lot more, this is very frustrating.  ...


Yeah, well, two more points:

1) The vast majority of people on this forum are not professional 
writers, so you have to adjust your expectations.


2) It's perfectly normal in any technical field to encounter specialized 
jargon, and it would be unnatural and also difficult to follow if 
posters avoided that jargon.


My remark about parsing referred at least in part to the fact that 
understanding the words is key to understanding the syntax. Compare this 
famous sentence that computers cannot understand:


Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.

It's the computer's inability to recognize "flies" and "like" in the 
second clause as a noun and a verb, respectively, that prevents it from 
correctly parsing that clause.


So that's why I tried to clarify by explaining "library."

--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

2017-08-26 Thread Frank-Rainer Grahl

> Yeah, I guess I'll have to upgrade sooner or later, although it will have to
> be a PC with a full size keyboard and a mouse - just can't abide laptops, it
> would drive me nuts no matter how cheap. W10 may still be free from MS, but

The old Thinkpad keyboards are still the second best thing here. Using an 
X200s while traveling and it is really good. But at home I have a docking 
station and a full sized keyboard and mouse connected to it. Best of both 
worlds. I have no use for touch. If it weren't for the dreaded Intel graphics 
chips with its sucky drivers it would be heaven.

Yes to get a free W10 license you need to have W7 loaded.

I am still running XP on a PC with special hardware and regularly test to see 
that SeaMonkey 2.49.1 still works fine but for audio/video I would just pass.

FRG

null wrote:

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

Yeah, I guess I'll have to upgrade sooner or later, although it will have to 
be a PC with a full size keyboard and a mouse - just can't abide laptops, it 
would drive me nuts no matter how cheap. W10 may still be free from MS, but 
only if you do the download using W7 or higher. I don't recall there ever 
being any sort of free download or upgrade for XP, and if there was I imagine 
it's long gone. Apart from the pesky cost, the problem with upgrading the 
hardware and going to W10 is that there are many unknowns. Apart from the fact 
that I know XP inside out and, like a lot of others have said, find the GUI 
and general way it runs very much to my liking, I suspect that a huge number 
of programmes I currently use may not run properly on W10, if they will run at 
all, and I would find that out the hard way. I do know what you refer to with 
the POS 2009 hack, but I think that would be fraught with all sorts of 
possible complications, and as you say it's on the way out, anyway.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

2017-08-26 Thread Chris Ilias


On 2017-08-26 8:06 AM, null wrote:

But getting back to the problem that I can't use SM or FF to watch video 
presented with Youtube's HTML5 Player, people say that I don't have the 
necessary codecs or that my XP OS doesn't have the necessary. Well, my 
Chrome browser on my XP machine DOES play those videos. If Chrome has 
something in it that does that running on XP, why doesn't FF and SM? 
Now, I can think of various possible answers to that question, but i 
can't identify the correct answer.



The following also applies to SeaMonkey:


"[10] To avoid patent issues, support for MPEG 4, H.264 and MP3 is not 
built directly into Firefox. Instead it relies on support from the OS or 
hardware (the hardware also needs to be able to support the profile used 
to encode the video, in the case of MP4). Firefox supports these formats 
on the following platforms: Windows Vista+ since Firefox 22.0, Android 
since Firefox 20.0, Firefox OS since Firefox 15.0, Linux since Firefox 
26.0 (relies on GStreamer codecs) and OS X 10.7 since Firefox 35.0."


--
Chris Ilias 
Newsgroup moderator
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims


Mason83 wrote:

On 26/08/2017 08:14, null wrote:


Anyway, thanks to the stuff on your links, I now get the general idea
that "an HTML5. video player" refers to software that resides on _the
server_, and uses HTML5 rather than flash or webM to do . . . well . . .
whatever it does that results in my browser getting a data feed that it
can display on my screen as a video.

Not quite. Javascript runs on the client (your browser).
And the video stream (typically a WebM or MP4 container)
is "decapsulated" on the host, and the compressed audio
and video streams are decompressed and sent to the
audio layer and frame buffer of the host.

There is no HTML5 vs WebM. HTML5 video specifies a standard
way to ... interact with a video stream (typically in a
container, but elementary streams might be supported).


I've noticed that my problem playing some Youtube videos seems to
frequently arise with current affairs videos. Just now went to Youtube
and found the following, which will not play and gives the error message
discussed earlier in this thread. And with JavaScript turned off, I
don't even get the error message, just a blank, black window.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfImP6jr28g

That's an MP4 container with H.264-encoded video.
They don't specify the audio codec, I'll bet AAC.

Regards.
That "test" video at the above link has unfortunately been removed by 
the user.


When you right click on the settings button on the Youtube window, you 
get an option for geeks which when selected gives info about the video. 
However, it doesn't seem to give the sort of info you cite above. Where 
did you get that from?

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

You can try this one:

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/175591-enable-mp4-h264-aac-html5-video-in-firefox-on-windows-xp-without-flash/

Thanks for that. there is a download link there for the Adobe thingy
they talk about, got it, scanned it, unzpped it, put it in a folder as
they instruct, didn't make any difference at that point, but perhaps
tomorrow I will make the about:config changes they list and see what
happens.

Probably the only way to get it working under XP. 2.48 is Fx 51

The POS2009 hack will give you current updates for your system till
2019 but does nothing for video decoding.

You can get a decent older Thinkpad running Windows 7 like a champ for
around $70. Same for other brands. Older office PCs are probably less.
While you can still get 10 for free from Microsoft but I wouldn't
recommend it. Not sure what to do after 2020 myself. Maybe go to Linux.

Yeah, I guess I'll have to upgrade sooner or later, although it will
have to be a PC with a full size keyboard and a mouse - just can't abide
laptops, it would drive me nuts no matter how cheap. W10 may still be
free from MS, but only if you do the download using W7 or higher. I
don't recall there ever being any sort of free download or upgrade for
XP, and if there was I imagine it's long gone. Apart from the pesky
cost, the problem with upgrading the hardware and going to W10 is that
there are many unknowns. Apart from the fact that I know XP inside out
and, like a lot of others have said, find the GUI and general way it
runs very much to my liking, I suspect that a huge number of programmes
I currently use may not run properly on W10, if they will run at all,
and I would find that out the hard way. I do know what you refer to with
the POS 2009 hack, but I think that would be fraught with all sorts of
possible complications, and as you say it's on the way out, anyway.

FRG

null wrote:

WaltS48 wrote:

On 8/25/17 12:55 PM, null wrote:

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 2017-08-22 7:17 AM, null wrote:
There seems to be a kind of war going on between the proponents
of Adobe Flash, something open source called Webm, and the HTML5
player.

HTML5 is not a media player. It's a language used for writing
webpages. The new HTML standard (number 5) allows browsers to play
video without the need for a third-party plugin, like Flash,
similar to how you don't need a plugin to view images. For more
info, this video does a good job explaining it
.

Since that video was published, Adobe has announced plans to kill
Flash.

As others have pointed out, the reason why you're having trouble
with HTML5 videos is because modern web browsers require something
later than Windows XP for HTML5 videos.

Glad you said that HTML5 is not a media player. I never thought
there really was an HTML5 player. I only cited it in my original
post because people keep using the term as if there was!

There are many video players that one can install on the HD, but
there is nothing called the HTML Player. Wish Youtube and various
people who write about these things would stop talking as though
there was!!

For instance, just found a Youtube video that I can't play, says my
browser (SM) does not recognize any of the video formats available.
When I click on the link proved in the message to get info about
HTML5 video, I get a Youtube help page that says "You can request
that the HTML5 player be used if your browser doesn't use it by
default" That nonsensical statements implies 1) that something
called the HTML Player exists - it doesn't - and 2) fails to
explain exactly how I can "request" that the HTML player be used!
Further down, there is another reference to "The HTML5 player."
These statements referring to "the HTML player" are to me
completely meaningless - I have no idea what they are supposed to
mean - yet they are put there by Youtube as if what is said is
quite clear. The page also says that my SM browser does support
HTMLVideoElement, Media Source Extensions, and MSE & WebM VP9, but
does not support H.264 or MSE & H.264. So what, exactly, are the
implications of this information? I don't know, and Youtube doesn't
say.

Are you blocking JavaScript?

I'm not blocking JavaScript. However, as a test, I have tried turning
it off in the SM config, but it makes no practical difference to the
video problem.

Thanks for the above links, the contents of which have finally thrown
some light on what people REALLY mean when they talk about the "HTML5
video player", but somehow can't seem to say it clearly. For
instance, the videojs site says that

"Video.js is an open source library for working with video on the
web, also known as an *HTML video player."

*What, exactly, is this ungrammatical and ambiguous sentence actually
trying to tell me? Grammatically, one

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

2017-08-26 Thread Mason83

On 26/08/2017 08:14, null wrote:

> Anyway, thanks to the stuff on your links, I now get the general idea 
> that "an HTML5. video player" refers to software that resides on _the 
> server_, and uses HTML5 rather than flash or webM to do . . . well . . . 
> whatever it does that results in my browser getting a data feed that it 
> can display on my screen as a video.

Not quite. Javascript runs on the client (your browser).
And the video stream (typically a WebM or MP4 container)
is "decapsulated" on the host, and the compressed audio
and video streams are decompressed and sent to the
audio layer and frame buffer of the host.

There is no HTML5 vs WebM. HTML5 video specifies a standard
way to ... interact with a video stream (typically in a
container, but elementary streams might be supported).

> I've noticed that my problem playing some Youtube videos seems to 
> frequently arise with current affairs videos. Just now went to Youtube 
> and found the following, which will not play and gives the error message 
> discussed earlier in this thread. And with JavaScript turned off, I 
> don't even get the error message, just a blank, black window.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfImP6jr28g

That's an MP4 container with H.264-encoded video.
They don't specify the audio codec, I'll bet AAC.

Regards.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims


Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

null wrote:


Thanks for the above links, the contents of which have finally thrown
some light on what people REALLY mean when they talk about the "HTML5
video player", but somehow can't seem to say it clearly. For instance,
the videojs site says that

"Video.js is an open source library for working with video on the web,
also known as an *HTML video player."

*What, exactly, is this ungrammatical and ambiguous sentence actually
trying to tell me? ...


The term "open source library for working with video on the web" is 
being equated with the term "HTML video player." In the simplest 
possible terms, such a "library" is also called a "player."


Definition of "software library" from The Free Dictionary: "a 
collection of standard routines used in computer programs, usually 
stored as an executable file."


So the sentence really isn't ungrammatical or ambiguous. You just have 
to know how to parse it.


Yes, as you say, in the "simplest possible terms", but sometimes 
"simple" becomes "simplistic", and therefore less than clear. Saying 
that you just have to know how to parse it is like saying that you just 
have to understand written English! With the sort of stuff I'm talking 
about in this thread, you shouldn't have to parse and syntatically 
analyze, the meaning should be clear without having to resort to 
re-reading, cogitation, etc. Don't want to make too much of that one 
single sentence above, but I've gotta say that I've found the web 
overflowing with masses of stuff about this or that aspect of computer 
and web technology and new developments in these areas, and that a huge 
proportion of it begs more questions than it answers because it fails to 
comply with even the most basic principles of technical or expository 
writing, or even with basic English grammar and syntax. Given that much 
of it is there for the benefit of non-techie, ordinary users rather than 
geeks, coders, developers, or whatever who would know a lot more, this 
is very frustrating.


But getting back to the problem that I can't use SM or FF to watch video 
presented with Youtube's HTML5 Player, people say that I don't have the 
necessary codecs or that my XP OS doesn't have the necessary. Well, my 
Chrome browser on my XP machine DOES play those videos. If Chrome has 
something in it that does that running on XP, why doesn't FF and SM? 
Now, I can think of various possible answers to that question, but i 
can't identify the correct answer.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

2017-08-26 Thread Frank-Rainer Grahl

You can try this one:

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/175591-enable-mp4-h264-aac-html5-video-in-firefox-on-windows-xp-without-flash/

Probably the only way to get it working under XP. 2.48 is Fx 51

The POS2009 hack will give you current updates for your system till 2019 but
does nothing for video decoding.

You can get a decent older Thinkpad running Windows 7 like a champ for around
$70. Same for other brands. Older office PCs are probably less. While you can
still get 10 for free from Microsoft but I wouldn't recommend it. Not sure
what to do after 2020 myself. Maybe go to Linux.

FRG

null wrote:

WaltS48 wrote:

On 8/25/17 12:55 PM, null wrote:

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 2017-08-22 7:17 AM, null wrote:
There seems to be a kind of war going on between the proponents of Adobe
Flash, something open source called Webm, and the HTML5 player.

HTML5 is not a media player. It's a language used for writing webpages.
The new HTML standard (number 5) allows browsers to play video without the
need for a third-party plugin, like Flash, similar to how you don't need a
plugin to view images. For more info, this video does a good job
explaining it .

Since that video was published, Adobe has announced plans to kill Flash.

As others have pointed out, the reason why you're having trouble with
HTML5 videos is because modern web browsers require something later than
Windows XP for HTML5 videos.

Glad you said that HTML5 is not a media player. I never thought there
really was an HTML5 player. I only cited it in my original post because
people keep using the term as if there was!

There are many video players that one can install on the HD, but there is
nothing called the HTML Player. Wish Youtube and various people who write
about these things would stop talking as though there was!!

For instance, just found a Youtube video that I can't play, says my browser
(SM) does not recognize any of the video formats available. When I click on
the link proved in the message to get info about HTML5 video, I get a
Youtube help page that says "You can request that the HTML5 player be used
if your browser doesn't use it by default" That nonsensical statements
implies 1) that something called the HTML Player exists - it doesn't - and
2) fails to explain exactly how I can "request" that the HTML player be
used! Further down, there is another reference to "The HTML5 player." These
statements referring to "the HTML player" are to me completely meaningless
- I have no idea what they are supposed to mean - yet they are put there by
Youtube as if what is said is quite clear. The page also says that my SM
browser does support HTMLVideoElement, Media Source Extensions, and MSE &
WebM VP9, but does not support H.264 or MSE & H.264. So what, exactly, are
the implications of this information? I don't know, and Youtube doesn't say.

Are you blocking JavaScript?

I'm not blocking JavaScript. However, as a test, I have tried turning it off
in the SM config, but it makes no practical difference to the video problem.

Thanks for the above links, the contents of which have finally thrown some
light on what people REALLY mean when they talk about the "HTML5 video
player", but somehow can't seem to say it clearly. For instance, the videojs
site says that

"Video.js is an open source library for working with video on the web, also
known as an *HTML video player."

*What, exactly, is this ungrammatical and ambiguous sentence actually trying
to tell me? Grammatically, one possibility is that working with video on the
web is also known as an HTML video player, but that makes no semantic sense at
all. Other possible but only slightly more meaningful interpretations come to
mind, but I won't waste trying trying to explicate those.

Anyway, thanks to the stuff on your links, I now get the general idea that "an
HTML5. video player" refers to software that resides on _the server_, and uses
HTML5 rather than flash or webM to do . . . well . . . whatever it does that
results in my browser getting a data feed that it can display on my screen as
a video.

I've noticed that my problem playing some Youtube videos seems to frequently
arise with current affairs videos. Just now went to Youtube and found the
following, which will not play and gives the error message discussed earlier
in this thread. And with JavaScript turned off, I don't even get the error
message, just a blank, black window.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfImP6jr28g

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

2017-08-26 Thread Paul B. Gallagher


null wrote:


Thanks for the above links, the contents of which have finally thrown
some light on what people REALLY mean when they talk about the "HTML5
video player", but somehow can't seem to say it clearly. For instance,
the videojs site says that

"Video.js is an open source library for working with video on the web,
also known as an *HTML video player."

*What, exactly, is this ungrammatical and ambiguous sentence actually
trying to tell me? ...


The term "open source library for working with video on the web" is 
being equated with the term "HTML video player." In the simplest 
possible terms, such a "library" is also called a "player."


Definition of "software library" from The Free Dictionary: "a collection 
of standard routines used in computer programs, usually stored as an 
executable file."


So the sentence really isn't ungrammatical or ambiguous. You just have 
to know how to parse it.


--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims


WaltS48 wrote:

On 8/25/17 12:55 PM, null wrote:

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 2017-08-22 7:17 AM, null wrote:
There seems to be a kind of war going on between the proponents of 
Adobe Flash, something open source called Webm, and the HTML5 player.


HTML5 is not a media player. It's a language used for writing 
webpages. The new HTML standard (number 5) allows browsers to play 
video without the need for a third-party plugin, like Flash, similar 
to how you don't need a plugin to view images. For more info, this 
video does a good job explaining it 
.


Since that video was published, Adobe has announced plans to kill 
Flash.


As others have pointed out, the reason why you're having trouble 
with HTML5 videos is because modern web browsers require something 
later than Windows XP for HTML5 videos.


Glad you said that HTML5 is not a media player. I never thought there 
really was an HTML5 player. I only cited it in my original post 
because people keep using the term as if there was!


There are many video players that one can install on the HD, but 
there is nothing called the HTML Player. Wish Youtube and various 
people who write about these things would stop talking as though 
there was!!


For instance, just found a Youtube video that I can't play, says my 
browser (SM) does not recognize any of the video formats available. 
When I click on the link proved in the message to get info about 
HTML5 video, I get a Youtube help page that says "You can request 
that the HTML5 player be used if your browser doesn't use it by 
default" That nonsensical statements implies 1) that something called 
the HTML Player exists - it doesn't - and 2) fails to explain exactly 
how I can "request" that the HTML player be used! Further down, there 
is another reference to "The HTML5 player." These statements 
referring to "the HTML player" are to me completely meaningless - I 
have no idea what they are supposed to mean - yet they are put there 
by Youtube as if what is said is quite clear. The page also says that 
my SM browser does support HTMLVideoElement, Media Source Extensions, 
and MSE & WebM VP9, but does not support H.264 or MSE & H.264. So 
what, exactly, are the implications of this information? I don't 
know, and Youtube doesn't say.





Are you blocking JavaScript?






I'm not blocking JavaScript. However, as a test, I have tried turning it 
off in the SM config, but it makes no practical difference to the video 
problem.


Thanks for the above links, the contents of which have finally thrown 
some light on what people REALLY mean when they talk about the "HTML5 
video player", but somehow can't seem to say it clearly. For instance, 
the videojs site says that


"Video.js is an open source library for working with video on the web, 
also known as an *HTML video player."


*What, exactly, is this ungrammatical and ambiguous sentence actually 
trying to tell me? Grammatically, one possibility is that working with 
video on the web is also known as an HTML video player, but that makes 
no semantic sense at all. Other possible but only slightly more 
meaningful interpretations come to mind, but I won't waste trying trying 
to explicate those.


Anyway, thanks to the stuff on your links, I now get the general idea 
that "an HTML5. video player" refers to software that resides on _the 
server_, and uses HTML5 rather than flash or webM to do . . . well . . . 
whatever it does that results in my browser getting a data feed that it 
can display on my screen as a video.


I've noticed that my problem playing some Youtube videos seems to 
frequently arise with current affairs videos. Just now went to Youtube 
and found the following, which will not play and gives the error message 
discussed earlier in this thread. And with JavaScript turned off, I 
don't even get the error message, just a blank, black window.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfImP6jr28g

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

2017-08-25 Thread WaltS48


On 8/25/17 12:55 PM, null wrote:

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 2017-08-22 7:17 AM, null wrote:
There seems to be a kind of war going on between the proponents of 
Adobe Flash, something open source called Webm, and the HTML5 player.


HTML5 is not a media player. It's a language used for writing 
webpages. The new HTML standard (number 5) allows browsers to play 
video without the need for a third-party plugin, like Flash, similar 
to how you don't need a plugin to view images. For more info, this 
video does a good job explaining it 
.


Since that video was published, Adobe has announced plans to kill Flash.

As others have pointed out, the reason why you're having trouble with 
HTML5 videos is because modern web browsers require something later 
than Windows XP for HTML5 videos.


Glad you said that HTML5 is not a media player. I never thought there 
really was an HTML5 player. I only cited it in my original post because 
people keep using the term as if there was!


There are many video players that one can install on the HD, but there 
is nothing called the HTML Player. Wish Youtube and various people who 
write about these things would stop talking as though there was!!


For instance, just found a Youtube video that I can't play, says my 
browser (SM) does not recognize any of the video formats available. When 
I click on the link proved in the message to get info about HTML5 video, 
I get a Youtube help page that says "You can request that the HTML5 
player be used if your browser doesn't use it by default" That 
nonsensical statements implies 1) that something called the HTML Player 
exists - it doesn't - and 2) fails to explain exactly how I can 
"request" that the HTML player be used! Further down, there is another 
reference to "The HTML5 player." These statements referring to "the HTML 
player" are to me completely meaningless - I have no idea what they are 
supposed to mean - yet they are put there by Youtube as if what is said 
is quite clear. The page also says that my SM browser does support 
HTMLVideoElement, Media Source Extensions, and MSE & WebM VP9, but does 
not support H.264 or MSE & H.264. So what, exactly, are the implications 
of this information? I don't know, and Youtube doesn't say.





Are you blocking JavaScript?






--
Go Bucs!
Coexist 
National Popular Vote 
Ubuntu 16.04 LTS - Unity Desktop
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims


NFN Smith wrote:

null wrote:

Thanks for above links, which are very helpful. I would post some 
URLs for videos I can't play, but an odd thing is happening. Some 
videos that wouldn't play now will play, and some that would now 
won't, so I'm going to poke around on  this a bit more with Youtube 
and see if I can pin  > down some stable examples.


If you're having that kind of behavior, you might want to create a 
separate profile, and see what happens when you're running from all 
default settings.  It may be that the problems you're having are not 
so much "Seamonkey" or even "mozilla" (especially if you can get the 
expected behavior from another browser), as it is conflicts that are 
related to your user profile in Seamonkey.


My experience is that inconsistent behavior from specific sites is 
often something that's profile-specific.


You could also try seeing what happens when you try Safe Mode (Help -> 
Restart with Add-ons disabled).


Smith

Thanks for the suggestions but just tried a new profile and it made no 
difference. Also tried with add-ons disabled, but again no difference

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

2017-08-25 Thread NFN Smith


null wrote:

Thanks for above links, which are very helpful. I would post some URLs 
for videos I can't play, but an odd thing is happening. Some videos that 
wouldn't play now will play, and some that would now won't, so I'm going 
to poke around on  this a bit more with Youtube and see if I can pin  > down some stable examples.


If you're having that kind of behavior, you might want to create a 
separate profile, and see what happens when you're running from all 
default settings.  It may be that the problems you're having are not so 
much "Seamonkey" or even "mozilla" (especially if you can get the 
expected behavior from another browser), as it is conflicts that are 
related to your user profile in Seamonkey.


My experience is that inconsistent behavior from specific sites is often 
something that's profile-specific.


You could also try seeing what happens when you try Safe Mode (Help -> 
Restart with Add-ons disabled).


Smith

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims


Chris Ilias wrote:

On 2017-08-22 7:17 AM, null wrote:
There seems to be a kind of war going on between the proponents of 
Adobe Flash, something open source called Webm, and the HTML5 player.


HTML5 is not a media player. It's a language used for writing 
webpages. The new HTML standard (number 5) allows browsers to play 
video without the need for a third-party plugin, like Flash, similar 
to how you don't need a plugin to view images. For more info, this 
video does a good job explaining it 
.


Since that video was published, Adobe has announced plans to kill Flash.

As others have pointed out, the reason why you're having trouble with 
HTML5 videos is because modern web browsers require something later 
than Windows XP for HTML5 videos.


Glad you said that HTML5 is not a media player. I never thought there 
really was an HTML5 player. I only cited it in my original post because 
people keep using the term as if there was!


There are many video players that one can install on the HD, but there 
is nothing called the HTML Player. Wish Youtube and various people who 
write about these things would stop talking as though there was!!


For instance, just found a Youtube video that I can't play, says my 
browser (SM) does not recognize any of the video formats available. When 
I click on the link proved in the message to get info about HTML5 video, 
I get a Youtube help page that says "You can request that the HTML5 
player be used if your browser doesn't use it by default" That 
nonsensical statements implies 1) that something called the HTML Player 
exists - it doesn't - and 2) fails to explain exactly how I can 
"request" that the HTML player be used! Further down, there is another 
reference to "The HTML5 player." These statements referring to "the HTML 
player" are to me completely meaningless - I have no idea what they are 
supposed to mean - yet they are put there by Youtube as if what is said 
is quite clear. The page also says that my SM browser does support 
HTMLVideoElement, Media Source Extensions, and MSE & WebM VP9, but does 
not support H.264 or MSE & H.264. So what, exactly, are the implications 
of this information? I don't know, and Youtube doesn't say.


 *


 *

 *

 *

 *

 *

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims


TCW wrote:

On 8/22/2017 6:17 AM, null wrote:
There seems to be a kind of war going on between the proponents of 
Adobe Flash, something open source called Webm, and the HTML5 player.


Increasingly videos from this or that source will not play in either 
SM or FF.


For instance, recent videos posted to Youtube increasingly will not 
play in SM 2.46. Instead, an error message says "Your browser does 
not currently recognize and of the video formats available. Click 
here to visit our frequently asked questions about HTML5 video."


The same problem occurs in FF 52.3.0.

Going to the offered Youtube FAQ, the information there is confusing 
and inadequate - it does not tell me exactly what I have to do or 
what I need in order to play video that apparently wants the HTML 
player . . . whatever exactly that is!


Chrome 49.0.2623.112 *will* run the *same* videos that the others won't.

What is going on here!? Very difficult to get any clear explanation 
about this.


Can anyone explain?


Agreeing with Frank on the XP thing. If you're on XP, best bet is to 
*try* K-Lite Basic. Otherwise, . 2017 tech doesn't work on a 
15+ year old OS.


Chrome 49 isn't FF 52.3.0. Who knows what tricks they used back in 
v49.0. You're running insecure apps my friend. If you insist on 
running a depreciated OS, at least do the POS2009 hack for XP to keep 
yourself safe for a few more years.
Well, unless you buy me W10 and a computer it will actually run on, I 
think I'm going to have to use XP and my old hardware for a while yet, 
'cos some of us have less money than others . . . .. :-(


I know about POS2009, but don't see it as a viable option for a number 
of reasons. However,thanks for the thought.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims

Mason83 wrote:

On 22/08/2017 13:17, null wrote:

There seems to be a kind of war going on between the proponents of Adobe
Flash, something open source called Webm, and the HTML5 player.

Flash is on the way out (December 2020).
https://www.ghacks.net/2017/07/25/adobe-retires-flash-in-december-2020/

Webm is a video format using only free audio/video codecs
(On2 VP8, Vorbis, Opus)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebM

HTML5 is a family of technologies, one of which is the video element.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video

In particular, you'll want to read carefully
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video#Free_formats

The problem is patents, and companies owning these
patents. Specifically H.264 and MPEG-LA.
(Although Cisco did provide a royalty-free H.264
decoder, if I am not mistaken...)
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2013/10/30/video-interoperability-on-the-web-gets-a-boost-from-ciscos-h-264-codec/

AV1 will set us all free!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOMedia_Video_1
Alliance for Open Media Video 1

Increasingly videos from this or that source will not play in either SM
or FF.

For instance, recent videos posted to Youtube increasingly will not play
in SM 2.46.

Please provide an URL (or several) of such videos.
I'm willing to bet that they work on most SM setups.

Regards.
Thanks for above links, which are very helpful. I would post some URLs
for videos I can't play, but an odd thing is happening. Some videos that
wouldn't play now will play, and some that would now won't, so I'm going
to poke around on this a bit more with Youtube and see if I can pin
down some stable examples.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims


Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Steve Dunn wrote:


On 2017-08-22 10:20, null wrote:


Do I have HTML5 support? From the above, I'm unclear.


You do, but you are missing one of the most common codecs, which may
be the problem.  There are numerous codecs
(COmpressors-DECompressors) for video, much like there are for audio,
and you need to have at least one in common with whatever codecs the
site you're visiting supports.

...

My 32-bit Seamonkey 2.46 running on 64-bit Windows 7 has checkmarks
in all of those boxes, and has no problem playing videos on Youtube.
That does lend credence to the theory that it's because you're
missing H.264.

Years ago, I saw a recommendation for the K-Lite Codec Pack and I
installed it on my computer.  Maybe that's the difference.


My 32-bit SeaMonkey 2.46 running on 64-bit Windows 7 Pro SP1 also has 
check marks in all the boxes, but not because I ever installed K-Lite. 
This thread is the first I've heard of it.


However, I do have the VLC player installed, as well as Adobe Flash 
and Shockwave, so maybe one of those provided the required code. In 
its advanced preferences, VLC lists H264 under "demuxers," FWIW.


Yup, have had VLC, flash, shockwave installed for a long time. Doesn't 
make any difference.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims


Steve Dunn wrote:

On 2017-08-22 10:20, null wrote:

WaltS48 wrote:

Do you have HTML5 support?



What is checked there?


Using SM, The page asks the question "What does this browser support?"

The following boxes are ticked :
HTMLVideoElement
Media Source Extensions
WebM VP8
MSE & WebM  VP9

The following boxes have an exclamation mark in them :
H.264
MSE & H.264

Do I have HTML5 support? From the above, I'm unclear.


You do, but you are missing one of the most common codecs, which 
may be the problem.  There are numerous codecs 
(COmpressors-DECompressors) for video, much like there are for audio, 
and you need to have at least one in common with whatever codecs the 
site you're visiting supports.


To put it in a non-technical analogy, HTML5 support is like the 
Roman alphabet and the codecs (VP8, VP9, H.264, etc.) are like 
languages.  If I know the Roman alphabet and two languages that use it 
(say, English and French) but the site only has videos in two other 
languages that also use the Roman alphabet (say, Swedish and 
Romanian), well, that won't work.


My 32-bit Seamonkey 2.46 running on 64-bit Windows 7 has 
checkmarks in all of those boxes, and has no problem playing videos on 
Youtube.  That does lend credence to the theory that it's because 
you're missing H.264.


Years ago, I saw a recommendation for the K-Lite Codec Pack and I 
installed it on my computer.  Maybe that's the difference.


-Steve
Yes, I know what you mean in your analogy with the Roman alphabet. 
However, I've had h.264 available for a long time. Have used k-lite in 
the past, and have just installed it again, but nothing changes. Sigh.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: There's a "video war" going on, and we users are the victims