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. 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.
Attachment:
pgp5e9i5wGjO0.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature