Please wait...
Once again I'm probably the last to figure this out, but ...
I was using "XBrowserSync" extension to sync my bookmarks across browsers. It has a choice of servers or you can run your own. I was happy with it for years but it appears to be getting murdered by the ManifestV2 slaugter.
Found a replacement called Floccus. It does all the same things, can store your bookmarks using a bunch of different stores (both cloud and personal options -- I'm actually using my own git server), and relies on HTTPS encryption rather than storing bookmarks in an opaque format. And it is ManifestV3 so the Goolag won't try to destroy it anytime soon.
Yes, all browsers have bookmark sync, but none of them are willing to sync between different browsers. This does. I am happy.
Gotta love walled gardens, that feed off of advertisements. How dare you circumvent us!
Once again I'm probably the last to figure this out, but ...
I was using "XBrowserSync" extension to sync my bookmarks across browsers. It has a choice of servers or you can run your own. I was happy with it for years but it appears to be getting murdered by the ManifestV2 slaugter.
Found a replacement called Floccus. It does all the same things, can store your bookmarks using a bunch of different stores (both cloud and personal options -- I'm actually using my own git server), and relies on HTTPS encryption rather than storing bookmarks in an opaque format. And it is ManifestV3 so the Goolag won't try to destroy it anytime soon.
Yes, all browsers have bookmark sync, but none of them are willing to sync between different browsers. This does. I am happy.
Apple is still worse.
Also, i suspect 3rd party phones will still allow it. Or there will be a way to 'fix' it, at least for the foreseeable future. Much like you could ( still can? i donno ) jailbreak iOS.
Louis Rossman is pointing out that if they move to an app store only model, then at that point you might as well be on iPhone.
Subject: Re: Bookmarks sync in the Mv3 world
Gotta love walled gardens, that feed off of advertisements. How dare
you circumvent us! [36m
Yeah. And the more they do it, the more resistance they get.
For example: I have a ten year old Vizio television that has a "cast" receiver built in to its software. It's the only time I tolerate ads in the videos, because the older protocol doesn't have remote control integration (not even through the sending phone) so it plays ads that are non-skippable but mercifully short. (Ok, they're starting to get longer, but they're not, like, three minutes long.)
The old software is getting unreliable, though. It appears to be maintained by a diversity hire who doesn't really know how to code. And/or Goolag simply doesn't care. So I looked into a replacement and I found Youtube Cast Receiver [https://github.com/GarrettBlackmon/youtube-cast-receiver] which is, quite simply, an Electron app that sets the user-agent to that of a smart TV and then opens https://youtube.com/tv -- which, as it turns out, is what ALL modern Smart TVs do. This seems like an obviously good strategy because now Goolag need only maintain the "lean-back" UI in one place, instead of orchestrating a thousand apps on a thousand Smart TV devices.
And it works! I tried it on my laptop this past week and opened it up on the TV in a hotel room, and it worked perfectly. BUT...
As soon as Goolag determines that you are holding a device that can be used as a remote control (including a linked smartphone) ... it goes into MEGA AD MODE. I watched a 25 minute video and there were three commercial breaks, and each of them had ads that would run for 1 to 3 minutes if I didn't skip them.
You know what I'm going to do now? Damn skippy you do. I'm going to join the product and add "security features" that block harmful URL's from being ingested. And the way you feed those URL's in will be through the standard Adblock list format.
Congratulations, dirtbags. You've converted a user who tolerated a few ads to a user who will consume zero ads.
Miracast is an option. Its what the rest of the industry uses other than than apple and google.
In fact, i just ordered a new "anycast" dongle. It supports several protocols, even apples.. native. Supposedly even chromecast, but never got that to work right. ( part of my plan B for when my current AndroidTV box either dies or gets upgraded to GeminiTV ). Ironically, chrome use to stream to it too. But google cut that off some time ago and now its "only allowed sites". ( which does not include any of theirs :) )
Was supposed to arrive today " hurry, order in 3 hours it will be there at 4am Saturday!!!" "um, never mind, perhaps Monday ( Not that i care, but annoyed at the false-promises )
New, in that my previous gen current dongle works fine ( just updated it Friday actually ) only is 2G WiFi, and this bumps it to 5G. Its not used much, mostly was to record something when i have no other practical alternative, or when i was on the road i could use it in a hotel room. Just cast to that, and then hook my HDMI to USB converter, and hit record. If i go to that as plan B ( instead of the NUC idea ) ill want the extra bandwidth i think.
And apparently i cant read.
Well, it arrived today anyway.... What i have now is 'anycast' i thought i got an upgraded version. But no, its 'ezcast' and no, its not the same feature set. Not sure if its going to work for me or not.
Subject: Re: Bookmarks sync in the Mv3 world
Miracast is an option. Its what the rest of the industry uses
True, and I have devices that do Miracast as well.
The win with doing youtube the native way is that the remote device (phone or whatever) does not sit in the media data path; it is basically your phone commanding your TV to play a video directly.
While true, aside from being shackled into the google infrastructure the biggest disadvantage to chromecast is it *requires* internet. Not that im against google ( yet ), but i dont want to be locked into it. And im slowly getting aggravated with them.
Sure, if you are watching YT, or Netflix or something that is fine, but if you want to use local files and not expose your TV to the outside.. it wont work if its 'only' a chromecast. ( one advantage to my AndroidTV, its a real android box underneath and chromecast is optional.
I had a blueray player like that once. For it to work at all it *had* to have internet. It wasn't around long and found its way to the dumpster.
( oh, and if you cast YT to your TV, all your browser ad blocks die, since like you say, its not really coming from your browser anymore, its direct to your tv )
Miracast is an option. Its what the rest of the industry uses
True, and I have devices that do Miracast as well.
The win with doing youtube the native way is that the remote device (phone or whatever) does not sit in the media data path; it is basically your phone commanding your TV to play a video directly.
And a slight update.
It does work, i guess. However, looks like you have to use an app to get Windows or OSX or Chromebook to work, unlike my other one. And i see people having limited success in the reviews. Android does work. i might try the apps, donno. Even setting it up requires an app. My other 'connect to its WiFi, use a webpage to setup"
Also cant get it to connect to my 5G WiFi, the entire reason it exists.. Keeps rejecting on the password.
Most likely its going to be dumpster food or donated. Cant really return it, it does work as advertised and isn't technically defective. I wont blame them on compatibility issues compared to the other, its my fault for not being able to read.
And apparently i cant read.
Well, it arrived today anyway.... What i have now is 'anycast' i thought i got an upgraded version. But no, its 'ezcast' and no, its not the same feature set. Not sure if its going to work for me or not.
Sure, if you are watching YT, or Netflix or something that is
fine, but if you want to use local files and not expose your TV
to the outside.. it wont work if its 'only' a chromecast. ( one
advantage to my AndroidTV, its a real android box underneath and
chromecast is optional.
Honest question: Why does people use devices and dongles when you can hook up an old computer you a boring dumb TV and have pretty much the same services?
I don't do Internet streaming to TV (because my Internet is too slow for it to work at home) but when I want to play movies from my NAS or whatever I just dock my Steam Deck to the TV and play from there. The Steam Deck can be controlled with a cell phone from the LAN so you even get a remove controller in the setup.
For me, its a matter of being a far simpler interface. Not that *I* cant do the hard way, but for others, just 'click and watch' is good. its why i have been working on ways to make it brain-dead easy on a PC-NUC. ( auto start a home screen with nothing but about 6 big buttons that go direct to the streaming sites, or my jellyfin server, or weather )
But, for many of the streaming services, once you get there,the android app is easier to navigate than their web page however. often times web is a dismal interface. So back to android boxes..
And from the above about the dongles, in theory you can just use your phone .. send it to the TV. Tho unfortunately here too, the chromecast variant is nearly transparent so it wins first place. But Mira, it takes a couple more steps. and again, not a concern for me, but others. Consolation is with a bare chromecast, none of the ads and crap you get with the default launcher on Android TV ( and ya, you can change the launcher but its now a pita and requires debug mode. so i just have it first in line, and its a click away to get rid of the noise )
Myself i almost never stream from extenral, but if all we used was Jelyfin, then a nuc with auto start web would be plenty. ( or i guess even kodi/libreelec but not a real fan of it. its ok, just not my style )
Sure, if you are watching YT, or Netflix or something that is
fine, but if you want to use local files and not expose your TV
to the outside.. it wont work if its 'only' a chromecast. ( one
advantage to my AndroidTV, its a real android box underneath and
chromecast is optional.
Honest question: Why does people use devices and dongles when you can hook up an old computer you a boring dumb TV and have pretty much the same services?
I don't do Internet streaming to TV (because my Internet is too slow for it to work at home) but when I want to play movies from my NAS or whatever I just dock my Steam Deck to the TV and play from there. The Steam Deck can be controlled with a cell phone from the LAN so you even get a remove controller in the setup.
Subject: Chromium 140.0.7339.80 Security Update Released: Critical Vulnerability Fixes for Linux Users
Ya, blocking ads is a critical security flaw.
https://linuxconfig.org/chromium-140-0-7339-80-security-update-released-critical-vulnerability-fixes-for-linux-users
Subject: Re: Bookmarks sync in the Mv3 world
Honest question: Why does people use devices and dongles when you can hook up an old computer you a boring dumb TV and have pretty much the same services?
The answer to that lies in the layout of the typical viewing room.
My house, for example: 55" television is on the wall, seating is on the opposite side of the room. It's comfortable. When we watch videos, several of us attach to the queue and submit things to watch for the next hour or so. Doing that with a computer would require putting a computer and its keyboard and mouse at the screen (ugly), getting up to change videos (too much trouble), and not having the ability to do a multiuser video queue.
It's convenience and style, nothing more. Sure, if you're sitting in a small room by yourself it isn't really a big deal, and your computer screen is probably your TV already. In a big comfortable room, the "lean back" interface is actually quite nice -- nice enough for me to tolerate a few short ads. But now they're getting greedy, and they're about to lose me.
To avoid this but still be able to type in a id/password or something on my Android boxes once in a while without going back into the computer room and digging out a keyboard/mouse and dongle ( only got 1 port ). i have a BT keyboard/trackpad about the size of 2 modern thin remotes side by side, so tiny. Also have a TV remote with a keyboard on the back and an gyration detection mouse feature.. ( wave it in the air, the pointer moves ), tho it requires a port for its dedicated dongle..
Would i want to use either on a regular basis, no, but it fits my need for the 'once in a blue moon' situation. Sure there is on-screen "keyboard", but i hate those. And while you would have to pass it around, at least you dont have to get up to do it, or have it hanging off your 'TV PC'. ( which if its a tiny nuc, wont take up much space )
require putting a computer and its keyboard and mouse at the screen
And if anyone was following my ongoing saga for a plan for when my current TV box dies .. getting everything we have now working and simple enough for others here to use, finally gave up and just ordered a new version of what i have. Might get here in a couple of weeks ( more amazon scam.. "hurry buy now be here at 4am.... ok.. its late, perhaps tomorrow.. ok. perhaps 2 weeks. we donno.." Not that i care it may take 2 weeks, but that they get away with false advertising annoys me ). If it gets geminifed, ill look at how to disable it all, even if it requires editing stuff in debug mode to get my launcher to auto start and disable garbage that wont go away.
If it was just me, id have ditched it long ago, but need to make it easy. ( and wouldn't even have things like Netflix or chromecast.. i don't need it )
And a side note, it amazes me how easy an app is for a streaming site, just scroll and click, but try to use their web page, its like a schizophrenic GenZ child created it. Noisy, lots of steps..