Re: some youtube files not playing

[brittney24]

Not sure which version(s) your announcement on Jun 18 applies to. No vids play in the more recent versions, but I WAS able to play them in 0.8.5 r5449 - in last 2 days (least, the few I tried). That was after the date of your announcement??

Newer unstable versions don't play any youtube vids for me, but today (6/22/13) stable version 0.8.5 doesn't play any, either.

[Sourcefan]

Hello Brittney24,

A few hours ago SMPlayer 0.8.5 stable didn't play many music videos from YouTube here.
After an upgrade to smplayer-0.8.5.5473-win32 all YouTube videos runs 100% for me.
That is on Windows XP (32 bit).

Have you tried smplayer-0.8.5.5473-win32 yourself?

Sourcefan.

[brittney24]

[rvm]

[redxii]

I tried a random assortment of videos from smtube on 64-bit portable and non-portable and didn't have any issues, using mplayer r36349.

[brittney24]

Thanks for replies. 1st, I wasn't being critical about it being experimental (not at all), just explaining why I hadn't immediately tried the latest SVN. I was waiting for the same portable build #. Doesn't matter much to me if it's 32 / 64 bit - esp. for dev builds.

I'll see what log data is created when SMP fails to play youtube vids & post. Maybe something useful - but it doesn't pop up any error.

I tried r5473 x64 portable. Due to physical limitations that affect typing, long sitting & staring at monitor I try to use portables - esp. on dev / beta software. Much faster to extract / delete.

By saying, "The fix is in svn r5473," (meaning, the 32 bit installer build?) that implies that the same fixes in same builds of portable and / or 64 bit versions DON'T necessarily work the same as in 32 bit installer?

Just asking - to label the 32 / 64 bit portable "unstable" versions the same as 32 bit unstable installer builds, they do? contain the same changes as installers? They just may not be tested enough to verify the fixes work the same as the same 32 bit installer build?

BTW, I tried both mplayer & mplayer2 (but mplayer2 possibly not updated for any of latest youtube issues?). Anyway, neither worked.

Redxii - thanks. Till now, I've not used smtube. Don't know much about it - except from brief description. It's "a youtube browser." I'm NOT implying anything about its security / privacy - cause I don't know. That's the problem - I don't know.

To me, "browser" means a different area of potential security / privacy issues VS. a media player. I'm not saying it does / doesn't have any - just that I have nothing from any 3rd party "experts" or any others that tested / examined smtube at a high technical level. I don't have that ability. "Fear of the unknown."

[brittney24]

Here's SMP 0.8.5r5473 x64 portable log (verbose). Some youtube vids attempted on 6/22 & 6/23. No msg of any kind shown in UI when vids fail. SMP shows it's attempting to begin caching for a few sec (< 10 sec), then quietly stops. Logs seem to show it recognizes youtube URLs, but no errors that I see.

Let me know if you need something else.

[redxii]

Try not to use https URLs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM_p1Az05Jo played fine, but
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM_p1Az05Jo didn't.

[brittney24]

I tried that trick before - didn't make any difference. I'll try again.

OK - tried it again - w/ just http. Worked for couple vids. Assume it has something to do w/ recognizing security certificates?
But, that means (for now) must manually delete the "s" in SMP's URL field - for each vid. I tried accessing "http://www.youtube.com, but it always redirects to https.

Not sure what, if any, security implications there are in not using a secure connection in SMP.

I'm not worried about someone "seeing" the data as it's transmitted. But what about someone "doing" something / altering / adding data, when not using secure connection?

I don't know about any video site - esp. run by google - or the hackers attracted to it, as being the safest place in the world. I'm just wondering out loud. Yes, I have good, updated AV, so there may / may not be much risk. Not sure.