• 10 Posts
  • 695 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 21st, 2021

help-circle





  • This isn’t how YouTube has streamed videos for many, many years.

    Most video and live streams work by serving a sequence of small self-contained video files (often in the 1-5s range). Sometimes audio is also separate files (avoids duplication as you often use the same audio for all video qualities as well as enables audio-only streaming). This is done for a few reasons but primarily to allow quite seamless switching between quality levels on-the-fly.

    Inserting ads in a stream like this is trivial. You just add a few ad chunks between the regular video chunks. The only real complication is that the ad needs to start at a chunk boundary. (And if you want it to be hard to detect you probably want the length of the ad to be a multiple of the regular chunk size). There is no re-encoding or other processing required at all. Just update the “playlist” (the list of chunks in the video) and the player will play the ad without knowing that it is “different” from the rest of the chunks.


  • That is a pretty weak argument. The issues are minor and in a library that people are moving off of to a better build and stronger validated library. Yes, it should have been like that in the first place, but the problem is minor and being addressed.

    I would look more to the various features of Matrix that aren’t encrypted like room names, topics, reactions, … and not to mention the oodles of unencrypted metadata. I really wouldn’t call Matrix a high-privacy system.

    I like Matrix and use it regularly, but it definitely doesn’t have a privacy-first mindset like Signal does. I’m hoping that this improves over time, but without a strong privacy first leadership it seems unlikely to happen.





  • The concern is that it would be nice if the UNIX users and LDAP is automatically in sync and managed from a version controlled source. I guess the answer is just build up a static LDAP database from my existing configs. It would be nice to have one authoritative system on the server but I guess as long as they are both built from one source of truth it shouldn’t be an issue.


  • Yes, LDAP is a general tool. But many applications that I am interested in using it for user information. That is what I want to use it for. I’m not really interested in storing other data.

    I think you are sort of missing the goal of the question. I have a bunch of self-hosted services like Jellyfin, qBittorrent, PhotoPrism, Metabase … I want to avoid having to configure users in each one individually. I am considering LDAP because it is supported by many of these services. I’m not concerned about synchronizing UNIX users, I already have that solved. (If I need to move those to LDAP as well that can be considered, but isn’t a goal).


  • I do use a reverse proxy but for various reasons you can’t just block off some apps. For example if you want to play Jellyfin on a Chromecast or similar, or PhotoPrism if you want to use sharing links. Unfortunately these systems are designed around the built-in auth and you can’t just slap a proxy in front.

    I do use nginx with basic with in front of services where I can. I trust nginx much more than 10 different services with varying quality levels. But unfortunately not all services play well.



  • How are you configuring this? I checked for Jellyfin and their are third-party plugins which don’t look too mature, but none of them seem to work with apps. qBittorrent doesn’t support much (actually I may be able to put reverse-proxy auth in front… I’ll look into that) and Metabase locks SSO behind a premium subscription.

    IDK why but it does seem that LDAP is much more widely supported. Or am I missing some method to make it work






  • kevincox@lemmy.mltoPrivacy@lemmy.mlIn search for a good VPN
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 days ago

    I mean it is always better to have more open source. But the point of the multi-hop system is that you don’t need to trust the server. Even if the server was open source:

    1. You wouldn’t know that we are running an unmodified version.
    2. If you need to trust the server then someone could compel us to tap it or monitor it.

    The open source client is enough to verify this and the security of the whole scheme.