[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Flash update

On Mon 04 Apr 2016 at 18:18:12 (+0300), Adam Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 23:12:41 -0500 David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Sun 03 Apr 2016 at 09:38:00 (+0300), Adam Wilson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 23:34:58 -0500 David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > When flash streams a movie, a copy is downloaded somewhere on my
> > > > disk. One beneficial effect of this is that if I click the slider
> > > > to an earlier point in the movie, the player plays instantly from
> > > > that point, without a wait for buffering. Is that the same with
> > > > HTML5, or is it truly streaming (with no local copy on the disk)?
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure about this. Just because moving to an earlier point in
> > > the stream resumes from that point instantly does not necessarily
> > > mean that flash is downloading a local copy- I'm pretty sure flash
> > > just keeps the entire stream in RAM, just like HTML5.
> > > 
> > > Either way, HTML5 does this too- you can instantly resume from an
> > > already-buffered point.
> > 
> > No, flash writes a file. It doesn't take much ingenuity to find it.
> > 
> > Generally speaking with youtube, it's straightforward to find the
> > 11-char string and use get-youtube to download the movie. With some
> > other sites, it doesn't appear possible to get hold of a downloadable
> > URL, so playing the movie and copying the flash file is the only way
> > I know for downloading it.
> > 
> > I would prefer not to lose that ability through selecting HTML5
> > merely because some people here say "Down with flash/Flash is dead".
> > If HTML5 *does* keep the information in RAM as you say, then I'm
> > stuck because I don't know how to find it or copy it. Can you help
> > with this?
> No. Since I don't use Flash, I know very little about how to use it,
> and for that I apologise.

No need to apologise about flash. *I'm* the one who knows about
flash. *You're* one of those exhorting us to switch to HTML5:
In fact, you appear to want enough people to boycott flash that it is
withdrawn and I'm forced to use something else, namely HTML5:
And your ally appears to want a faster resolution:

However, when I ask whether HTML5 can do something that I could do
with flash, then your answer is no, I can't help you. Fat lot of good
that is.

> However, your original complaint was that you needed Flash to be able
> to resume instantaneously from an earlier point in the video. Both
> Flash and HTML5 players do this.

No, I mentioned this as a benefit. It's a side-effect to flash's
writing the file mentioned in the previous sentence (the very first
sentence of the post). I want the file and with flash I can have it.
All I've learnt about HTML5 so far is that it keeps the entire stream
in RAM (allegedly, as you've presented no actual evidence that this is
the case).

It's obviously got to keep *some* of the stream in RAM or else it
couldn't play it, nor would you ever see any "buffering"
indication. That doesn't necessarily mean it's got all of it
in RAM at any one instant.


Reply to: