
Recherche avancée
Médias (1)
-
Bug de détection d’ogg
22 mars 2013, par
Mis à jour : Avril 2013
Langue : français
Type : Video
Autres articles (59)
-
Keeping control of your media in your hands
13 avril 2011, parThe vocabulary used on this site and around MediaSPIP in general, aims to avoid reference to Web 2.0 and the companies that profit from media-sharing.
While using MediaSPIP, you are invited to avoid using words like "Brand", "Cloud" and "Market".
MediaSPIP is designed to facilitate the sharing of creative media online, while allowing authors to retain complete control of their work.
MediaSPIP aims to be accessible to as many people as possible and development is based on expanding the (...) -
Les vidéos
21 avril 2011, parComme les documents de type "audio", Mediaspip affiche dans la mesure du possible les vidéos grâce à la balise html5 .
Un des inconvénients de cette balise est qu’elle n’est pas reconnue correctement par certains navigateurs (Internet Explorer pour ne pas le nommer) et que chaque navigateur ne gère en natif que certains formats de vidéos.
Son avantage principal quant à lui est de bénéficier de la prise en charge native de vidéos dans les navigateur et donc de se passer de l’utilisation de Flash et (...) -
(Dés)Activation de fonctionnalités (plugins)
18 février 2011, parPour gérer l’ajout et la suppression de fonctionnalités supplémentaires (ou plugins), MediaSPIP utilise à partir de la version 0.2 SVP.
SVP permet l’activation facile de plugins depuis l’espace de configuration de MediaSPIP.
Pour y accéder, il suffit de se rendre dans l’espace de configuration puis de se rendre sur la page "Gestion des plugins".
MediaSPIP est fourni par défaut avec l’ensemble des plugins dits "compatibles", ils ont été testés et intégrés afin de fonctionner parfaitement avec chaque (...)
Sur d’autres sites (7997)
-
Hung out to dry
31 mai 2013, par Mans — Law and libertyOutrage was the general reaction when Google recently announced their dropping of XMPP server-to-server federation from Hangouts, as the search giant’s revamped instant messaging platform is henceforth to be known. This outrage is, however, largely unjustified ; Google’s decision is merely a rational response to issues of a more fundamental nature. To see why, we need to step back and look at the broader instant messaging landscape.
A brief history of IM
The term instant messaging (IM) gained popularity in the mid-1990s along with the rise of chat clients such as ICQ, AOL Instant Messenger, and later MSN Messenger. These all had one thing in common : they were closed systems. Although global in the sense of allowing access from anywhere on the Internet, communication was possible only within each network, and only using the officially sanctioned client software. Contrast this with email, where users are free to choose any service provider as well as client software, inter-server communication over open protocols delivering messages to their proper destinations.
The email picture has, however, not always been so rosy. During the 1970s and 80s a multitude of incompatible email systems (e.g. UUCP and X.400) were in more or less widespread use on various networks. As these networks gave way to the ARPANET/Internet, so did their mail systems to the SMTP email we all use today. A similar consolidation has yet to occur in the area of instant messaging.
Over the years, a few efforts towards a cross-domain instant messaging have been undertaken. One early example is the Zephyr system created as part of Project Athena at MIT in the late 1980s. While it never saw significant uptake, it is still in use at a few universities. A more successful story is that of XMPP. Conceived under the name Jabber in the late 1990s, XMPP is an open standard specified in a set of IETF RFCs. In addition to being open, a distinguishing feature of XMPP compared to other contemporary IM systems is its decentralised nature, server-to-server connections allowing communication between users with accounts on different systems. Just like email.
The social network
A more recent emergence on the Internet is the social network. Although not the first of its kind, Facebook was the first to achieve its level of penetration, both geographically and across social groups. A range of messaging options, including email-style as well as instant messaging (chat), are available, all within the same web interface. What it does not allow is communication outside the Facebook network. Other social networks operate in the same spirit.
The popularity of social networks, to the extent that they for many constitute the primary means of communication, has in a sense brought back fragmented networks of the 1980s. Even though they share infrastructure, up to and including the browser application, the social networks create walled-off regions of the Internet between which little or no exchange is possible.
The house that Google built
In 2005, Google launched Talk, an XMPP-based instant messaging service allowing users to connect using either Google’s official client application or any third-party XMPP client. Soon after, server-to-server federation was activated, enabling anyone with a Google account to exchange instant messages with users of any other federated XMPP service. An in-browser chat interface was also added to Gmail.
It was arguably only with the 2011 introduction of Google+ that Google, despite its previous endeavours with Orkut and Buzz, had a viable contender in the social networking space. Since its inception, Google+ has gone through a number of changes where features have been added or reworked. Instant messaging within Google+ was until recently available only in mobile clients. On the desktop, the sole messaging option was Hangouts which, although featuring text chat, cannot be considered instant messaging in the usual sense.
With a sprawling collection of messaging systems (Talk, Google+ Messenger, Hangouts), some action to consolidate them was a logical step. What we got was a unification under the Hangouts name. A redesigned Google+ now sports in-browser instant messaging similar the the Talk interface already present in Gmail. At the same time, the standalone desktop Talk client is discontinued, as is the Messenger feature in mobile Google+. All together, the changes make for a much less confusing user experience.
The sky is falling down
Along with the changes to the messaging platform, one announcement stoked anger on the Internet : Google’s intent to discontinue XMPP federation (as of this writing, it is still operational). Google, the (self-described) champions of openness on the Internet were seen to be closing their doors to the outside world. The effects of the change are, however, not quite so earth-shattering. Of the other major messaging networks to offer XMPP at all (Facebook, Skype, and the defunct Microsoft Messenger), none support federation ; a Google user has never been able to chat with a Facebook user.
XMPP federation appears to be in use mainly by non-profit organisations or individuals running their own servers. The number of users on these systems is hard to assess, though it seems fair to assume it is dwarfed by the hundreds of millions using Google or Facebook. As such, the overall impact of cutting off communication with the federated servers is relatively minor, albeit annoying for those affected.
A fragmented world
Rather than chastising Google for making a low-impact, presumably founded, business decision, we should be asking ourselves why instant messaging is still so fragmented in the first place, whereas email is not. The answer can be found by examining the nature of entities providing these services.
Ever since the commercialisation of the Internet started in the 1990s, email has been largely seen as being part of the Internet. Access to email was a major selling point for Internet service providers ; indeed, many still use the email facilities of their ISP. Instant messaging, by contrast, has never come as part of the basic offering, rather being a third-party service running on top of the Internet.
Users wishing to engage in instant messaging have always had to seek out and sign up with a provider of such a service. As the IM networks were isolated, most would choose whichever service their friends were already using, and a small number of networks, each with a sustainable number of users, came to dominate. In the early days, dedicated IM services such as ICQ were popular. Today, social networks have taken their place with Facebook currently in the dominant position. With the new Hangouts, Google offers its users the service they want in the way they have come to expect.
Follow the money
We now have all the pieces necessary to see why inter-domain instant messaging has never taken off, and the answer is simple : the major players have no commercial incentive to open access to their IM networks. In fact, they have good reason to keep the networks closed. Ensuring that a person leaving the network loses contact with his or her friends, increases user retention by raising the cost of switching to another service. Monetising users is also better facilitated if they are forced to remain on, say, Facebook’s web pages while using its services rather than accessing them indirectly, perhaps even through a competing (Google, say) frontend. The users do not generally care much, since all their friends are already on the same network as themselves.
While Google Talk was a standalone service, only loosely coupled to other Google products, these aspects were of lesser importance. After all, Google still had access to all the messages passing through the system and could analyse them for advert targeting purposes. Now that messaging is an integrated part of Google+, and thus serves as a direct competitor to the likes of Facebook, the situation has changed. All the reasons for Facebook not to open its network now apply equally to Google as well.
-
Alias Artifacts
26 avril 2013, par Multimedia Mike — GeneralThroughout my own life, I have often observed that my own sense of nostalgia has a window that stretches about 10-15 years past from the current moment. Earlier this year, I discovered the show “Alias” and watched through the entire series thanks to Amazon Prime Instant Video (to be fair, I sort of skimmed the fifth and final season which I found to be horribly dull, or maybe franchise fatigue had set in). The show originally aired from 2001-2006 so I found that it fit well within the aforementioned nostalgia window.
But what was it, exactly, about the show that triggered nostalgia ? The computers, of course ! The show revolved around spies and espionage and cutting-edge technology necessarily played a role. The production designer for the series must have decided that Unix/Linux == awesome hacking and so many screenshots featured Linux.
Since this is still nominally a multimedia blog, I’ll start of the screenshot recon with an old multimedia player. Here is a vintage Mac OS desktop running an ancient web browser (probably Netscape) that’s playing a full-window video (probably QuickTime embedded directly into the browser).
Let’s jump right into the Linux side of things. This screenshot makes me particularly sentimental since this is exactly what a stock Linux/KDE desktop looked like circa 2001-2003 and is more or less what I would have worked with on my home computer at the time :
Studying that screenshot, we see that the user logs in as root, even to the desktop environment. Poor security practice ; I would expect better from a bunch of spooks.
Echelon
Look at the terminal output in the above screenshot– it’s building a program named Echelon, an omniscient spy tool inspired by a real-world surveillance network of the same name. In the show, Echelon is used to supply plot-convenient intelligence. At one point, some antagonists get their hands on the Echelon source code and seek to compile it. When they do, they will have access to the vast surveillance network. If you know anything about how computers work, don’t think about that too hard.Anyway, it’s interesting to note that Echelon is a properly autotool’d program– when the bad guys finally got Echelon, installation was just a ‘make install’ command away. The compilation was very user-friendly, though, as it would pop up a nice dialog box showing build progress :
Examining the build lines in both that screenshot and the following lines, we can see that Echelon cares about files such as common/db_err.c and bt_curadj.c :
A little googling reveals that these files both belong to the Berkeley DB library. That works ; I can imagine a program like this leveraging various database packages.
Computer Languages
The Echelon source code stuff comes from episode 2.11 : “A Higher Echelon”. While one faction had gotten a hold of the actual Echelon source code, a rival faction had abducted the show’s resident uber-nerd and, learning that they didn’t actually receive the Echelon code, force the nerd to re-write Echelon from scratch. Which he then proceeds to do…
The code he’s examining there appears to be C code that has something to do with joystick programming (JS_X_0, JS_Y_1, etc.). An eagle-eyed IMDb user contributed the trivia that he is looking at the file /usr/include/Linux/joystick.h.
Getting back to the plot, how could the bad buys possibly expect him to re-write a hugely complex piece of software from scratch ? You might think this is the height of absurdity for a computer-oriented story. You’ll be pleased to know that the writers agreed with that assessment since, when the program was actually executed, it claimed to be Echelon, but that broke into a game of Pong (or some simple game). Suddenly, it makes perfect sense why the guy was looking at the joystick header file.
This is the first bit of computer-oriented fun that I captured when I was watching the series :
This printout purports to be a “mainframe log summary”. After some plot-advancing text about a security issue, it proceeds to dump out some Java source code.
SSH
Secure Shell (SSH) frequently showed up. Here’s a screenshot in which a verbose ‘ssh -v’ connection has just been closed, while a telnet command has apparently just been launched (evidenced by “Escape character is ‘^]’.”) :
This is followed by some good old Hollywood Hacking in which a free-form database command is entered through any available command line interface :
I don’t remember the episode details, but I’m pretty sure the output made perfect sense to the character typing the command. Here’s another screenshot where the SSH client pops up an extra-large GUI dialog element to notify the user that it’s currently negotiating with the host :
Now that I look at that screenshot a little more closely, it appears to be a Win95/98 program. I wonder if there was an SSH client that actually popped up that gaudy dialog.
There’s a lot of gibberish in this screenshot and I wish I had written down some details about what it represented according to the episode’s plot :
It almost sounds like they were trying to break into a network computer. Analyzing MD5 structure… public key synthesized. To me, the funniest feature is the 7-digit public key. I’m a bit rusty on the math of the RSA cryptosystem, but intuitively, it seems that the public and private keys need to be of roughly equal lengths. I.e., the private key in this scenario would also be 7 digits long.
Gadgets
Various devices and gadgets were seen at various junctures in the show. Here’s a tablet computer from back when tablet computers seemed like fantastical (albeit stylus-requiring) devices– the Fujitsu Stylistic 2300 :
Here’s a videophone from an episode that aired in 2005. The specific model is the Packet8 DV326 (MSRP of US$500). As you can see from the screenshot, it can do 384 kbps both down and up.
I really regret not writing down the episode details surrounding this gadget. I just know that it was critical that the good guys get it and keep from falling into the hands of the bad guys.
As you can see, the (presumably) deadly device contains a Samsung chip and a Lexar chip. I have to wonder what device the production crew salvaged this from (probably just an old cell phone).
Other Programs
The GIMP photo editor makes an appearance while scrubbing security camera footage, and serves as the magical Enhance Button (at least they slung around the term “gamma”) :
I have no idea what MacOS-based audio editing program this is. Any ideas ?
FTP shows up in episode 2.12, “The Getaway”. It’s described as a “secure channel” for communication, which is quite humorous to anyone versed in internet technology.
-
Where can I find modern tutorials for libav, ffmpeg, etc ? [on hold]
19 décembre 2016, par MartyI want to make a quick program in C that will open a video, save each frame as a ppm, and dump motion vectors. All the tutorials I can find are from almost ten years ago and call deprecated or non-existent functions.
Are there any good online resources, websites, videos, or textbooks that cover a modern approach to doing these types of things ?