On 08/18/2015 11:53 AM, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
> On 18/08/15 12:49, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
>
>> Any idea that can shed some light on this problem?
>
> I forgot to say that I'm using Debian Jessie with iceweasel 40.0-1~bpo80+1.
It works fine for me on up-to-date Jessie with iceweasel 38.2.0. With
On 18/08/15 12:49, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
> Any idea that can shed some light on this problem?
I forgot to say that I'm using Debian Jessie with iceweasel 40.0-1~bpo80+1.
Thanks again.
Best regards,
Daniel
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hi all!
Some time ago I'm having problems when trying to play in Iceweasel some
videos posted on LinkedIn. Example:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/too-much-your-plate-36-fred-kofman?trk=hp-feed-article-title-like
I get a message saying something like "Video not found or access denied:
//vcdn.sli
Hi,
Christian Hödl wrote:
> [...] vlc [...]
> Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> #0 0x7f1726489743 in av_freep () from
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libavutil.so.54
> [...] xine [...]
> Program terminated with signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
> #0 0x7f79cd291107 in __GI
Hi,
playing videos in debian jessie leads to seg faults on my machine (fresh
installation,
vlc and xine output attached).
According to gdb it looks like there could be some problem in libavutil:
vlc
gdb -c core vlc
Reading symbols from vlc...(no debugging symbols found)...done.
[New LWP
Quoting songbird (songb...@anthive.com):
> David Wright wrote:
> ...
> > someone to answer. To spell it out, I would like to click on a youtube
> > link from a google search and read the video's metadata and any
> > comments without immediately seeing the progress bar vacuuming up
> > 500MB worth o
David Wright wrote:
...
> someone to answer. To spell it out, I would like to click on a youtube
> link from a google search and read the video's metadata and any
> comments without immediately seeing the progress bar vacuuming up
> 500MB worth of my monthly bandwidth.
i don't know of anything w
Quoting Curt (cu...@free.fr):
> On 2015-02-10, David Wright wrote:
> > [...] To spell it out, I would like to click on a youtube
> > link from a google search and read the video's metadata and any
> > comments without immediately seeing the progress bar vacuuming up
> > 500MB worth of my monthly b
On 2015-02-10, David Wright wrote:
>>
>> That's what I said (in so many words).
>
> I'm sorry if you feel that I have trodden on your toes or plagiarised
> your post. However, I need to illustrate the problem that I would love
> someone to answer. To spell it out, I would like to click on a youtu
Quoting Curt (cu...@free.fr):
> On 2015-02-10, David Wright wrote:
> > Quoting Curt (cu...@free.fr):
> >>
> >> I updated to the latest version but still get security warnings (and
> >> have to click on "allow" or something of the kind).
> >
> > I rather enjoy this misfeature. It means I can click
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 23:37 -0500, Mark Allums wrote:
> On 9/28/2012 1:39 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 20:27 -0500, Mark Allums wrote:
> >> Try:
> >>
> >> $clive -f best "http://vimeo.com/24972836";
> >
> > Does it download and convert long YouTube videos on the fly or does it
On 9/28/2012 1:39 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 20:27 -0500, Mark Allums wrote:
Try:
$clive -f best "http://vimeo.com/24972836";
Does it download and convert long YouTube videos on the fly or does it
take hours?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KufCS2ad0eE
Regards,
Ralf
On
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:24:12 +0200
Siard wrote:
> Celejar:
> > lee:
> > > Celejar:
> > > > If the website gives you a mms:// url, can wget download the
> > > > content from that (I don't know, I've never tried it)?
> > >
> > > You'd have to try, the manpage of wget doesn't say and I don't have
>
Celejar:
> lee:
> > Celejar:
> > > If the website gives you a mms:// url, can wget download the
> > > content from that (I don't know, I've never tried it)?
> >
> > You'd have to try, the manpage of wget doesn't say and I don't have
> > an URL to try it with.
>
> I'm pretty sure wget doesn't hand
On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 20:27 -0500, Mark Allums wrote:
> Try:
>
> $clive -f best "http://vimeo.com/24972836";
Does it download and convert long YouTube videos on the fly or does it
take hours?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KufCS2ad0eE
Regards,
Ralf
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-req
On 9/25/2012 4:42 PM, lee wrote:
Celejar writes:
http://www.iba.org.il/gimmel/?entity=869508&type=269&page=248
Clicking the little red headphone-with-emanating-sound-waves brings up
this message:
"You must install the Windows Media Player Firefox Plugin.
Click here to download and install t
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:42:22 +0200
lee wrote:
> Celejar writes:
>
> > http://www.iba.org.il/gimmel/?entity=869508&type=269&page=248
> >
> > Clicking the little red headphone-with-emanating-sound-waves brings up
> > this message:
> >
> > "You must install the Windows Media Player Firefox Plugin.
Celejar writes:
> http://www.iba.org.il/gimmel/?entity=869508&type=269&page=248
>
> Clicking the little red headphone-with-emanating-sound-waves brings up
> this message:
>
> "You must install the Windows Media Player Firefox Plugin.
>
> Click here to download and install the plugin.
>
> Or click
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:11:22 +0200
lee wrote:
> Celejar writes:
>
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 23:22:28 +0200
> > lee wrote:
> >
> >> Celejar writes:
> >>
> >> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:49:59 +0200
> >> > lee wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Celejar writes:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> >> like someone else would a
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:52:10 -0400
Rob Owens wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 02:22:11PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:49:59 +0200
> > lee wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've used it many times to watch / download media that I
> > > > couldn't access any other way.
> > >
> > > How did
Camaleón writes:
>>> Then install Adobe Flash Player and problem solved.
>>
>> It doesn't solve the problem.
>
> It will solve the problem of displaying Flash Player videos in the
> browser, what makes you think it won't?
That isn't the problem.
I removed the flashplayer library from ado
Celejar writes:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 23:22:28 +0200
> lee wrote:
>
>> Celejar writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:49:59 +0200
>> > lee wrote:
>> >
>> >> Celejar writes:
>
> ...
>
>> >> like someone else would and it doesn't work, so I have no reason to
>> >> believe that it would work fo
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 02:22:11PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:49:59 +0200
> lee wrote:
> >
> > > I've used it many times to watch / download media that I
> > > couldn't access any other way.
> >
> > How did you do that?
>
The above was referencing gecko-mediaplayer and mozil
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 23:22:28 +0200
lee wrote:
> Celejar writes:
>
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:49:59 +0200
> > lee wrote:
> >
> >> Celejar writes:
...
> >> like someone else would and it doesn't work, so I have no reason to
> >> believe that it would work for someone else. And there was some
On 2012-09-20, lee wrote:
>>
>> Hanlon's razor applies here as well.
>
> Huh?
>
I wish Gillette's razor could be applied to some of these threads.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Arch
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 23:16:03 +0200, lee wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
>>> Like I said, nothing to worry about. Do you have a plan B?
>>
>> Yes, of course; the same approach that I've used for DMCA-friendly
>> services: avoiding those that require from me a component which is not
>> available for my
Celejar writes:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:49:59 +0200
> lee wrote:
>
>> Celejar writes:
>> >
>> > Perhaps because they don't want people grabbing the videos and watching
>> > them without browsing to their site, or reposting them elsewhere?
>>
>> People have to go to their website to get it eit
Camaleón writes:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:20:20 +0200, lee wrote:
>
>> Camaleón writes:
>
>>> Sadly, we can't be sure on what the future will provide, so worrying
>>> know is useless and wasteful. The only we can do is having a "Plan B",
>>> that's all.
>>
>> Like I said, nothing to worry about
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:49:59 +0200
lee wrote:
> Celejar writes:
>
> > On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 03:11:59 +0200
> > lee wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> isn't something I would want to do, and I don't understand why websites
> >> which are there to let people watch videos attempt to make watching them
> >
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:20:20 +0200, lee wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
Should that happens, you will have to choose: looking for a proper
replacement of the plugin or simply avoid sites that make use of an
unsupported feature in your system.
>>>
>>> And that isn't a good situation.
>>
Celejar writes:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 03:11:59 +0200
> lee wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> isn't something I would want to do, and I don't understand why websites
>> which are there to let people watch videos attempt to make watching them
>> so difficult for people that they can't watch the videos in the fi
Martin Steigerwald writes:
> Am Sonntag, 16. September 2012 schrieb lee:
>>
>> Adobe says on their website: "Flash Player 11.2 is the last supported
>> Flash Player version for Linux. Adobe will continue to provide security
>> updates."[1]
>>
>> What's that supposed to mean? Will we soon have
Andrei POPESCU writes:
> On Jo, 20 sep 12, 03:11:59, lee wrote:
>>
>> Thank you! It doesn't seem to reasonably lead to anywhere. Maintaining
>> a library of scripts that deal with particular websites which even
>> continue to change how they present the videos to break such scripts
>> isn't so
Camaleón writes:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:27:35 +0200, lee wrote:
>
>> Camaleón writes:
>>>
>>> Should that happens, you will have to choose: looking for a proper
>>> replacement of the plugin or simply avoid sites that make use of an
>>> unsupported feature in your system.
>>
>> And that isn't
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 03:11:59 +0200
lee wrote:
...
> isn't something I would want to do, and I don't understand why websites
> which are there to let people watch videos attempt to make watching them
> so difficult for people that they can't watch the videos in the first
> place.
Perhaps because
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 16. September 2012 schrieb lee:
> > Frank McCormick writes:
> > > On 15/09/12 06:30 PM, lee wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> trying out chromium, I have found that both seamonkey and chromium
> > >> are able to play arbitrary
Am Sonntag, 16. September 2012 schrieb lee:
> Frank McCormick writes:
> > On 15/09/12 06:30 PM, lee wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> trying out chromium, I have found that both seamonkey and chromium
> >> are able to play arbitrary videos found on youtube. I used to have
> >>
> > Chrome has built-in
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:27:35 +0200, lee wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
>>> There is also the possibility that they come up with a new version for
>>> other OSs. They could add features in the new version that make it
>>> impossible to play videos which are compatible with the new version
>>> with th
On Jo, 20 sep 12, 03:11:59, lee wrote:
>
> Thank you! It doesn't seem to reasonably lead to anywhere. Maintaining
> a library of scripts that deal with particular websites which even
> continue to change how they present the videos to break such scripts
> isn't something I would want to do, and
Rob Owens writes:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 05:30:29PM +0200, lee wrote:
>> Rob Owens writes:
>>
>> > Looks like gecko-mediaplayer is the replacement for mozilla-mplayer.
>> > Testing it now...
>>
>> Let me guess: It doesn't work.
>>
> I couldn't get it to work, but I may have gotten a lead.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 05:30:29PM +0200, lee wrote:
> Rob Owens writes:
>
> > Looks like gecko-mediaplayer is the replacement for mozilla-mplayer.
> > Testing it now...
>
> Let me guess: It doesn't work.
>
I couldn't get it to work, but I may have gotten a lead. Several
web articles talk abou
Camaleón writes:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:28:30 +0200, lee wrote:
>
>> Camaleón writes:
>
> (...)
>
>> There is also the possibility that they come up with a new version for
>> other OSs. They could add features in the new version that make it
>> impossible to play videos which are compatible w
Rob Owens writes:
> Looks like gecko-mediaplayer is the replacement for mozilla-mplayer.
> Testing it now...
Let me guess: It doesn't work.
--
Debian testing amd64
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:28:30 +0200, lee wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
(...)
>> OTOH, html5 is now at the corner, my hope is that Flash Player for the
>> web dies in a very near future...
>
> There is also the possibility that they come up with a new version for
> other OSs. They could add feature
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 08:26:13PM -0400, Rob Owens wrote:
> >
> > Thx, I looked at that and there weren't any. Meanwhile, I tried gnash
> > and found that it doesn't work at all. Lightspark depends on
> > pulseaudio, and I don't want to install that. Are there any
> > alternatives --- preferab
On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 20:15 -0500, Mark Allums wrote:
> Fiddling around by semi-random clicking on stuff and reloading the
> page six or eight times sometimes works. In other words, patience is
> what's required.
Deleting the cache, closing and opening the browser and last but not
least rebooting
--- On Tue, 9/18/12, Mark Allums wrote:
> From: Mark Allums
> Subject: Re: What is playing videos in web browsers?
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2012, 8:15 PM
>
>
> Some computers don't resume all the hardware properly.
> If
On 9/18/2012 7:53 PM, Go Linux wrote:
--- On Sat, 9/15/12, lee wrote:
From: lee
Subject: Re: What is playing videos in web browsers?
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Date: Saturday, September 15, 2012, 11:08 PM
Adobe says on their website: "Flash Player 11.2 is the last
supported
--- On Sat, 9/15/12, lee wrote:
> From: lee
> Subject: Re: What is playing videos in web browsers?
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Date: Saturday, September 15, 2012, 11:08 PM
>
>
> Adobe says on their website: "Flash Player 11.2 is the last
> supported
>
Camaleón writes:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 23:42:57 +0200, lee wrote:
>
>> There might be the problem that, in a while, you can't play videos with
>> it anymore since Adobe says there aren't going to be any further
>> releases. I don't know what their plans are, perhaps it just becomes
>> obsolete
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 23:42:57 +0200, lee wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 23:09:43 +0200, lee wrote:
>>
>> interactive applications. Anyway, what trouble are you having with
>> Adobe Flash Player?
>
> Besides that I hate it, if you use it, you don't have key bindings like
> you
becomes
> obsolete and what's built into the web browsers replaces it.
>
> >> It's no more than a video which mplayer can play once you can download
> >> it, so what's the problem?
Flashplayer is for more than just for playing videos. At the moment
flashp
Rob Owens writes:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 08:26:13PM -0400, Rob Owens wrote:
>> >
>> There used to be mozilla-mplayer, but it looks like it's not in the
>> Squeeze repos. There is mozilla-plugin-vlc. Maybe give that a shot.
>>
> Hmm, I just tried it and many of the videos on youtube and vim
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 08:26:13PM -0400, Rob Owens wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 11:09:43PM +0200, lee wrote:
> > Camaleón writes:
> >
> > > On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 00:30:23 +0200, lee wrote:
> > >
> > >> trying out chromium, I have found that both seamonkey and chromium are
> > >> able to play a
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 11:09:43PM +0200, lee wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
>
> > On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 00:30:23 +0200, lee wrote:
> >
> >> trying out chromium, I have found that both seamonkey and chromium are
> >> able to play arbitrary videos found on youtube. I used to have
> >> libflashplayer.so
Camaleón writes:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 23:09:43 +0200, lee wrote:
>
> interactive applications. Anyway, what trouble are you having with Adobe
> Flash Player?
Besides that I hate it, if you use it, you don't have key bindings like
you do in mplayer. It probably doesn't use VDPAU, either.
Ther
Chris Bannister writes:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 04:58:35PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 14:37 +0200, lee wrote:
>> > flashgot
>>
>> I installed something called DownloadHelper, but never used it.
>
> apt-get show clive
Sounds good, I'll try it, thank you :)
--
Debian
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 04:58:35PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 14:37 +0200, lee wrote:
> > flashgot
>
> I installed something called DownloadHelper, but never used it.
apt-get show clive
--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are bei
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 23:09:43 +0200, lee wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
(...)
>>> What might they be using to play these videos? Where is configured
>>> what they use?
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> "about:plugins" will tell what other flash plugins are installed and
>> available for your browser.
>
> Thx, I l
Camaleón writes:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 00:30:23 +0200, lee wrote:
>
>> trying out chromium, I have found that both seamonkey and chromium are
>> able to play arbitrary videos found on youtube. I used to have
>> libflashplayer.so in the ~/.mozilla/plugins directory which used to play
>> such vide
On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 14:37 +0200, lee wrote:
> flashgot
I installed something called DownloadHelper, but never used it.
$ pacman -Qi firefox
Name : firefox
Version: 15.0.1-1
Architecture : x86_64
$ pacman -Qi flashplugin
Name : flashplugin
Version: 11.2.202.
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 00:30:23 +0200, lee wrote:
> trying out chromium, I have found that both seamonkey and chromium are
> able to play arbitrary videos found on youtube. I used to have
> libflashplayer.so in the ~/.mozilla/plugins directory which used to play
> such videos. I have removed it for
Bob Proulx writes:
> Frank McCormick wrote:
>
> Chrome is the nonfree version. It is nonfree because it includes
> Flash and probably other nonfree things. Chromium is the free version
> and does not have Flash nor any other nonfree thing embedded. That is
> the specific difference between Ch
On 9/16/2012 2:22 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
On 9/15/2012 11:48 PM, lee wrote:
Hmmm. They are saying I'm participating in a test and seamonkey
supports Video-Tag and WebM (whatever that is) and doesn't support
h.264. They are saying chromium supports all of it.
How do I get h.264 support in seamo
On 9/15/2012 11:48 PM, lee wrote:
How do I get h.264 support in seamonkey?
It will probably happen eventually, but h.264 has patents, so it may not
happen soon. You can always add it yourself through a plugin. But you
may have to *write* the plugin yourself, and it may not be legal in some
On 9/15/2012 11:48 PM, lee wrote:
Peter Viskup writes:
there is something like HTML5 already out.
Try to have a look on http://www.youtube.com/html5 and then search for
HTML5 support for your favorite browser and you will get an answer.
Hmmm. They are saying I'm participating in a test and
Frank McCormick writes:
> On 15/09/12 06:30 PM, lee wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> trying out chromium, I have found that both seamonkey and chromium are
>> able to play arbitrary videos found on youtube. I used to have
>
> Chrome has built-in Flash - it's called PepperFlash so it does not
> depend on ex
Peter Viskup writes:
> there is something like HTML5 already out.
> Try to have a look on http://www.youtube.com/html5 and then search for
> HTML5 support for your favorite browser and you will get an answer.
Hmmm. They are saying I'm participating in a test and seamonkey
supports Video-Tag and
Frank McCormick wrote:
> lee wrote:
> >trying out chromium, I have found that both seamonkey and chromium are
> >able to play arbitrary videos found on youtube. I used to have
> >libflashplayer.so in the ~/.mozilla/plugins directory which used to play
> >such videos. I have removed it for testing
On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 01:15 +0200, Peter Viskup wrote:
> there is something like HTML5 already out.
> Try to have a look on http://www.youtube.com/html5 and then search for
> HTML5 support for your favorite browser and you will get an answer.
AFAIK HTML5 draft doesn't replace flash completely. It
On 09/16/2012 12:30 AM, lee wrote:
Hi,
trying out chromium, I have found that both seamonkey and chromium are
able to play arbitrary videos found on youtube. I used to have
libflashplayer.so in the ~/.mozilla/plugins directory which used to play
such videos. I have removed it for testing and b
On 15/09/12 06:30 PM, lee wrote:
Hi,
trying out chromium, I have found that both seamonkey and chromium are
able to play arbitrary videos found on youtube. I used to have
libflashplayer.so in the ~/.mozilla/plugins directory which used to play
such videos. I have removed it for testing and bot
Hi,
trying out chromium, I have found that both seamonkey and chromium are
able to play arbitrary videos found on youtube. I used to have
libflashplayer.so in the ~/.mozilla/plugins directory which used to play
such videos. I have removed it for testing and both browsers still play
videos. In t
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:01:11 -0400, Ethan Rosenberg wrote:
> At 02:17 PM 6/10/2012, Camaleón wrote:
>>With a MS video container file (.avi)? Use a different one and your life
>>will be -by far- better.
(...)
> Dear Teacher -
>
> Problem Solved.
>
> Converted the files to mp4. :-[
Thank to th
At 02:17 PM 6/10/2012, Camaleón wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:47:09 -0400, Ethan Rosenberg wrote:
> At 12:11 PM 6/10/2012, Camaleón wrote:
>>Video tag is supported in the newer versions of the usual browsers
>>(Firerox, Chrome, Opera...). It works well here (Firefox 13) :-)
> Icewease
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:47:09 -0400, Ethan Rosenberg wrote:
> At 12:11 PM 6/10/2012, Camaleón wrote:
>>Video tag is supported in the newer versions of the usual browsers
>>(Firerox, Chrome, Opera...). It works well here (Firefox 13) :-)
> Iceweasel 10.0.1 Does not work
Provide fall-back
At 12:11 PM 6/10/2012, Camaleón wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 11:50:32 -0400, Ethan Rosenberg wrote:
> At 07:17 AM 6/10/2012, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>>I'd do more testing, for example, use tag, load a differnt file
>>container other than AVI (e.g., .mpeg, .ogv...) and also run the tests
>>with d
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 11:50:32 -0400, Ethan Rosenberg wrote:
> At 07:17 AM 6/10/2012, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>>I'd do more testing, for example, use tag, load a differnt file
>>container other than AVI (e.g., .mpeg, .ogv...) and also run the tests
>>with different browsers.
>>
> Dear Teacher -
>
At 07:17 AM 6/10/2012, Camaleón wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 00:28:49 -0400, Ethan Rosenberg wrote:
Ethan, your reply quoting looks weird, I'll try to rearrange it :-?
> At 12:53 PM 6/8/2012, Camaleón wrote:
>> > 1] I am trying to play a video using VLC. If I call the video from a
>> > HTML5 d
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 00:28:49 -0400, Ethan Rosenberg wrote:
Ethan, your reply quoting looks weird, I'll try to rearrange it :-?
> At 12:53 PM 6/8/2012, Camaleón wrote:
>> > 1] I am trying to play a video using VLC. If I call the video from a
>> > HTML5 document, it takes 90 seconds to load. If
At 12:53 PM 6/8/2012, Camaleón wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:32:03 -0400, Ethan Rosenberg wrote:
> Dear List -
>
> If this is considered an HTML question, I apologize and please direct me
> to the correct forum for submission.
No problem, just tag the subject accordingly :-)
> 1] I am trying t
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:32:03 -0400, Ethan Rosenberg wrote:
> Dear List -
>
> If this is considered an HTML question, I apologize and please direct me
> to the correct forum for submission.
No problem, just tag the subject accordingly :-)
> 1] I am trying to play a video using VLC. If I call th
Dear List -
If this is considered an HTML question, I apologize and please direct
me to the correct forum for submission.
1] I am trying to play a video using VLC. If I call the video from a
HTML5 document, it takes 90 seconds to load. If I go directly to the
directory where the video is l
83 matches
Mail list logo
