Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #158760 > unrolled thread

Video-UNfriendly browsers?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Video-UNfriendly browsers? brian <brian@meadows.pair.com> - 2015-10-10 18:10 +0200
    Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-10-10 18:20 +0200
    Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 18:40 +0200
      Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 19:00 +0200
        Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 07:00 +0200
          Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 13:20 +0200
    Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2015-10-10 19:40 +0200
      Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-10-10 19:50 +0200
    Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-10-10 20:00 +0200
      Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Timothy Hobbs <timothy@hobbs.cz> - 2015-10-10 20:20 +0200
        Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Timothy Hobbs <timothy@hobbs.cz> - 2015-10-10 21:20 +0200
        Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2015-10-10 21:20 +0200
    Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2015-10-10 20:10 +0200
      Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2015-10-10 21:00 +0200
        Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Timothy Hobbs <timothy@hobbs.cz> - 2015-10-10 21:40 +0200
          Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Timothy Hobbs <timothy@hobbs.cz> - 2015-10-10 21:40 +0200
        Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Carl Fink <carl@finknetwork.com> - 2015-10-10 22:30 +0200
          Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2015-10-10 23:10 +0200
        Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2015-10-10 22:40 +0200
      Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2015-10-10 21:20 +0200
    Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Sven Arvidsson <sa@whiz.se> - 2015-10-10 21:50 +0200
      Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Sven Arvidsson <sa@whiz.se> - 2015-10-10 22:00 +0200
        Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Timothy Hobbs <timothy@hobbs.cz> - 2015-10-10 22:10 +0200
          Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Sven Arvidsson <sa@whiz.se> - 2015-10-10 22:30 +0200
    Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? brian <brian@meadows.pair.com> - 2015-10-11 12:00 +0200
    Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-10-11 20:20 +0200
      Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-10-11 21:10 +0200
        Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Timothy Hobbs <timothy@hobbs.cz> - 2015-10-11 23:40 +0200
          Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 00:20 +0200
            Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 02:00 +0200
              Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-10-12 07:00 +0200
        Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-10-11 23:40 +0200
        Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net> - 2015-10-12 00:30 +0200
    Re: Video-UNfriendly browsers? Gener Badenas <gener.ong.badenas@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 04:50 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#158796

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, 2015-10-10 at 12:07 -0400, brian wrote:
> My wife and I live out in the wilds of Maine, and the only internet
> service we can get is satellite, which means a maximum of 250 MB
> total
> up and down per day. That allowance gets drained away by these damned
> autoplay videos on various news sites. Pat is using Wheezy, I'm using
> Jessie - short of going back to Lynx, does anyone have any
> recommendations for a browser which can be configured NOT to
> autostart
> videos? I'm not talking just on YouTube or similar sites - there are
> a
> zillion extensions to do that for Firefox, but they don't work on
> other sites, e.g. the New York Times. 

Sounds like Mozilla have improved the support for stopping auto-playing
video, but you need version 41 (in experimental):

http://www.ghacks.net/2015/06/11/finally-mozilla-adds-working-html5-video-autoplay-blocking-to-firefox/

Another workaround would be to disable the video codes Iceweasel uses
and manually download the videos you want to watch using something like
youtube-dl.


-- 
Cheers,
Sven Arvidsson
http://www.whiz.se
PGP Key ID 6FAB5CD5

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158799

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, 2015-10-10 at 21:45 +0200, Sven Arvidsson wrote:
> Sounds like Mozilla have improved the support for stopping auto
> -playing
> video, but you need version 41 (in experimental):

Okay so upon further reading it seems that it doesn't auto-play, but
still downloads the video, so that feature seems moot in your case.

I'm surprised there aren't more browsers aimed at limiting data usage,
considering that most of us pay through the nose for bandwidth (at
least on the mobile side).

The only thing that comes to mind is Opera Turbo, but that's not free
software:
http://www.opera.com/turbo

-- 
Cheers,
Sven Arvidsson
http://www.whiz.se
PGP Key ID 6FAB5CD5

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158800

Are you sure that noscript doesn't block video in iceweasel when fully 
enabled? It claims to block <video> and <audio> tags.

On 10/10/15 21:56, Sven Arvidsson wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-10-10 at 21:45 +0200, Sven Arvidsson wrote:
>> Sounds like Mozilla have improved the support for stopping auto
>> -playing
>> video, but you need version 41 (in experimental):
> Okay so upon further reading it seems that it doesn't auto-play, but
> still downloads the video, so that feature seems moot in your case.
>
> I'm surprised there aren't more browsers aimed at limiting data usage,
> considering that most of us pay through the nose for bandwidth (at
> least on the mobile side).
>
> The only thing that comes to mind is Opera Turbo, but that's not free
> software:
> http://www.opera.com/turbo
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158803

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, 2015-10-10 at 22:04 +0200, Timothy Hobbs wrote:
> Are you sure that noscript doesn't block video in iceweasel when
> fully 
> enabled? It claims to block <video> and <audio> tags.

It depends. In the case of the yahoo video mentioned above, the video
is served up from yahoo.com, so it isn't blocked unless you disable
yahoo.com too. (At least, that's the behaviour on my system).

That seems to work on that site, but there are others that will not
render anything at all without javascript.

-- 
Cheers,
Sven Arvidsson
http://www.whiz.se
PGP Key ID 6FAB5CD5

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158836

On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 12:07:30 -0400, you wrote:
>
>My wife and I live out in the wilds of Maine, and the only internet
>service we can get is satellite, which means a maximum of 250 MB total
>up and down per day. That allowance gets drained away by these damned
>autoplay videos on various news sites. Pat is using Wheezy, I'm using
>Jessie - short of going back to Lynx, does anyone have any
>recommendations for a browser which can be configured NOT to autostart
>videos? I'm not talking just on YouTube or similar sites - there are a
>zillion extensions to do that for Firefox, but they don't work on
>other sites, e.g. the New York Times. 
>

Thanks for the advice, all. I'll start working my way through the
suggestions.


Brian. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158892

Seriously, though, as much as you dread returning to lynx, it is the most
bandwith-friendly option on the table. If you don't want videos of any kind,
and are content with just plaintext (and separately downloadable images) you
should be safe. What's so bad about lynx?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158900

Last time I checked, most sites don't display properly with lynx because 
they are not designed for text-based browses. All on the contrary, most 
web sites are full of useless images, but nonetheless, not displaying 
them breaks those sites.

There may be application for those browsers (like reading HTML manuals 
that have minimal formatting), but obviously they are not suitable for 
ordinary browsing.

El 11/10/15 a las 13:13, moxalt escribió:
> Seriously, though, as much as you dread returning to lynx, it is the most
> bandwith-friendly option on the table. If you don't want videos of any kind,
> and are content with just plaintext (and separately downloadable images) you
> should be safe. What's so bad about lynx?
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158922

Please don't go all pedantic on us!

On 10/11/15 23:31, Chris Bannister wrote:
> Please don't top post on the debian-user mailing list.
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 01:57:11PM -0500, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
>> El 11/10/15 a las 13:13, moxalt escribió:
>>> Seriously, though, as much as you dread returning to lynx, it is the most
>>> bandwith-friendly option on the table. If you don't want videos of any kind,
>>> and are content with just plaintext (and separately downloadable images) you
>>> should be safe. What's so bad about lynx?
>> Last time I checked, most sites don't display properly with lynx
>> because
>> they are not designed for text-based browses. All on the contrary,
>> most web
>> sites are full of useless images, but nonetheless, not displaying them
>> breaks those sites.
> I haven't found that at all. In fact pressing the '*' key loads all
> images, which you could download if you wanted.
>
>> There may be application for those browsers (like reading HTML manuals
>> that
>> have minimal formatting), but obviously they are not suitable for
>> ordinary
>> browsing.
> au contraire, I find lynx good for the majority of the sites that I
> visit. It's only on the rare occasion I do need to use iceweasel.
>
> I even use it for youtube to get the link then use cclive to download
> the video, of course I have to change to the GUI to watch it though. :)

Please don't go all pedantic on us!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158928

On Sunday 11 October 2015 22:33:16 Timothy Hobbs wrote:
> Please don't go all pedantic on us!
>
> On 10/11/15 23:31, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > Please don't top post on the debian-user mailing list.
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 01:57:11PM -0500, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> >> El 11/10/15 a las 13:13, moxalt escribió:
> >>> Seriously, though, as much as you dread returning to lynx, it is the
> >>> most bandwith-friendly option on the table. If you don't want videos of
> >>> any kind, and are content with just plaintext (and separately
> >>> downloadable images) you should be safe. What's so bad about lynx?
> >>
> >> Last time I checked, most sites don't display properly with lynx
> >> because
> >> they are not designed for text-based browses. All on the contrary,
> >> most web
> >> sites are full of useless images, but nonetheless, not displaying them
> >> breaks those sites.
> >
> > I haven't found that at all. In fact pressing the '*' key loads all
> > images, which you could download if you wanted.
> >
> >> There may be application for those browsers (like reading HTML manuals
> >> that
> >> have minimal formatting), but obviously they are not suitable for
> >> ordinary
> >> browsing.
> >
> > au contraire, I find lynx good for the majority of the sites that I
> > visit. It's only on the rare occasion I do need to use iceweasel.
> >
> > I even use it for youtube to get the link then use cclive to download
> > the video, of course I have to change to the GUI to watch it though. :)
>
> Please don't go all pedantic on us!

It's not pedantic.  It makes the thread readable instead of incomprehensible.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158933

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

2015/10/12 7:14 "Lisi Reisz" <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>:
>
> On Sunday 11 October 2015 22:33:16 Timothy Hobbs wrote:
> > Please don't go all pedantic on us!
> >
> > On 10/11/15 23:31, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > Please don't top post on the debian-user mailing list.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 01:57:11PM -0500, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> > >> El 11/10/15 a las 13:13, moxalt escribió:
> > >>> Seriously, though, as much as you dread returning to lynx, it is the
> > >>> most bandwith-friendly option on the table. If you don't want
videos of
> > >>> any kind, and are content with just plaintext (and separately
> > >>> downloadable images) you should be safe. What's so bad about lynx?
> > >>
> > >> Last time I checked, most sites don't display properly with lynx
> > >> because
> > >> they are not designed for text-based browses. All on the contrary,
> > >> most web
> > >> sites are full of useless images, but nonetheless, not displaying
them
> > >> breaks those sites.
> > >
> > > I haven't found that at all. In fact pressing the '*' key loads all
> > > images, which you could download if you wanted.
> > >
> > >> There may be application for those browsers (like reading HTML
manuals
> > >> that
> > >> have minimal formatting), but obviously they are not suitable for
> > >> ordinary
> > >> browsing.
> > >
> > > au contraire, I find lynx good for the majority of the sites that I
> > > visit. It's only on the rare occasion I do need to use iceweasel.
> > >
> > > I even use it for youtube to get the link then use cclive to download
> > > the video, of course I have to change to the GUI to watch it though.
:)
> >
> > Please don't go all pedantic on us!
>
> It's not pedantic.  It makes the thread readable instead of
incomprehensible.
>
> Lisi
>

I suspect Chris appreciated the humour in that.

Joel Rees

Computer memory is just fancy paper,
CPUs just fancy pens.
All is a stream of text
flowing from the past into the future.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158939

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 08:58:25AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
> 2015/10/12 7:14 "Lisi Reisz" <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>:
> >
> > On Sunday 11 October 2015 22:33:16 Timothy Hobbs wrote:
> > > Please don't go all pedantic on us!
> > >
> > > On 10/11/15 23:31, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > > Please don't top post on the debian-user mailing list.
> > >
> > > Please don't go all pedantic on us!
> >
> > It's not pedantic.  It makes the thread readable instead of
> incomprehensible.
> 
> I suspect Chris appreciated the humour in that.

I guess I should have, but all I could think about was the absence of
any trimming. :(

I've lightened up and am now smiling. :)

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158923

Please don't top post on the debian-user mailing list.

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 01:57:11PM -0500, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> El 11/10/15 a las 13:13, moxalt escribió:
> >Seriously, though, as much as you dread returning to lynx, it is the most
> >bandwith-friendly option on the table. If you don't want videos of any kind,
> >and are content with just plaintext (and separately downloadable images) you
> >should be safe. What's so bad about lynx?

> Last time I checked, most sites don't display properly with lynx
> because
> they are not designed for text-based browses. All on the contrary,
> most web
> sites are full of useless images, but nonetheless, not displaying them
> breaks those sites.

I haven't found that at all. In fact pressing the '*' key loads all
images, which you could download if you wanted.

> There may be application for those browsers (like reading HTML manuals
> that
> have minimal formatting), but obviously they are not suitable for
> ordinary
> browsing.

au contraire, I find lynx good for the majority of the sites that I 
visit. It's only on the rare occasion I do need to use iceweasel.

I even use it for youtube to get the link then use cclive to download
the video, of course I have to change to the GUI to watch it though. :)

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158931

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Granted, I am not sure what sites you wish to visit.
still, because lynx  in its updated form mirrors the functions of some 
mobile platforms, you might be amazed how well sites display with it.
especially the m. editions.  Web designers are understanding that there 
are still some people who are not interesting in loading tons of stuff, that 
there  are lots of people using very small screens etc.
be sure you are trying the latest edition before you pass on Lynx.
Karen


On Sun, 11 Oct 2015, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:

> Last time I checked, most sites don't display properly with lynx because they 
> are not designed for text-based browses. All on the contrary, most web sites 
> are full of useless images, but nonetheless, not displaying them breaks those 
> sites.
>
> There may be application for those browsers (like reading HTML manuals that 
> have minimal formatting), but obviously they are not suitable for ordinary 
> browsing.
>
> El 11/10/15 a las 13:13, moxalt escribió:
>>  Seriously, though, as much as you dread returning to lynx, it is the most
>>  bandwith-friendly option on the table. If you don't want videos of any
>>  kind,
>>  and are content with just plaintext (and separately downloadable images)
>>  you
>>  should be safe. What's so bad about lynx?
>> 
>
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158937

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 12:07 AM, brian <brian@meadows.pair.com> wrote:

>
> My wife and I live out in the wilds of Maine, and the only internet
> service we can get is satellite, which means a maximum of 250 MB total
> up and down per day. That allowance gets drained away by these damned
> autoplay videos on various news sites. Pat is using Wheezy, I'm using
> Jessie - short of going back to Lynx, does anyone have any
> recommendations for a browser which can be configured NOT to autostart
> videos? I'm not talking just on YouTube or similar sites - there are a
> zillion extensions to do that for Firefox, but they don't work on
> other sites, e.g. the New York Times.
>

For Chrome, you can go to plugin section and select 'Let me choose when to
run plugin content'. For Firefox it seems not consistent, hit or miss.


>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian.
>
>


-- 
Programming Rocks! <http://grails.asia/groovy-substring>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web