Well, I never said anything about web interfaces. I do not like them. If the system is preconfigured, then no interface is required. "The best interface is no interface."
If there needs to be configuration while the system is running, then I prefer SSH or serial console. The images I use on my RPi are configured with an sshd listening on a loopback interface.
My analogy to consumer routers was only to remind readers that consumers plug these computers (routers) into their networks all by themselves without any assistance. This makes any argument that consumers cannot plug things into their network hard for me to believe.
Setting up those crappy routers is another issue unrelated to my comment. I don't know how consumers get it done, but they do. I find web interfaces annoying and unnecessary but I know many users love them. Again, this has nothing to do with my comment, which concerns preconfigured images and booting from external media (as on the RPi).
In reading comments of software authors in mailing lists and forums over the years, I sometimes noticed a particular vitriol for writing what are called "trivial" programs. By the same token, I sometimes noticed a strange attraction to large programs that only the author(s) could ever hope to understand. Not sure if I am the only one to notice this. I recall one author proudly telling a forum of programmers that his creation was so complex it would hurt the eyes of anyone who attempted to read the code.
I place the highest value on small programs and the lowest value on large, complex programs. But I suspect this is not the norm, whether among end users, authors, or both.
I also recall some comment from Kernighan about how back in the early days of AWK he was amazed at the sizes of the scripts people were writing. He had never expected AWK to be used to write large, complex "programs".
Maybe small programs are boring? Maybe people cannot manage to simplify their problems by subdividing them into smaller tasks? Maybe they do not believe the problems can be simpflied? Maybe adding features is how authors attempt attract or retain users? Who knows?
Can you be more specific? Irrespective of this project and its goals, I agree with the installation approach.
What is the impassable step?
Purchasing a RPi?
Using a program to copy an image to an SD Card? What if SD Cards with the image pre-installed were also available?
The RPi stays on unless someone unplugs it, so I trust that no one is going to claim "always on" is an issue. It does not even have a reset button like most consumer routers.
Setting up consumer routers involves plugging into a local network so I cannot imagine that is an issue either.
So what is it?
This image is a whopping 1GB and there is no link to source code. Without source code this is all but worthless. However I agree 100% with the distribution and installation method.
All computers, including routers, should boot from removable media. And users should get to choose what OS they run. Control. Who has it? Users have very little and what they have is continually being eroded.
If users want more control over what internet companies are allowed to do, then this is the way forward.
Could not agree more. However you do realize that this is a favorite idea of the founders of YC? PG and RM's company was based around it. Recently someone posted a video of an interview with PG and he seemed absolutely enamoured with a more recent "cloud" company that did the same thing. He thought it was cool that the code entered on the screen never for a moment was saved on the author's own computer.
I use my browser to browse. And that's all. This allows the browser to be smaller, faster, less complex, and, if it matters, more secure.
vidbull looks more like the old "file storage locker" sites that were popular before the megaupload crackdown. Isn't this the same content you can find using torrent sites? Is it likely that vidbull would have something for which no torrent would ever exist? Sorry for my ignorance.
Is decompiling SWF and/or de-obfuscating Javascript really necessary?
Years ago, I approached these sites like the author in the blog post. I spent hours reading about Flash and figuring out the schemes websites used. I decompiled swf. I also tried rtmpdump, livestreamer and other all-in-one solutions. I used early youtube downloaders (clive, etc) and later quvi. I also used /dev/bpf to capture HTTP requests. I tried it all.
I can relate to what the author is trying to do. I never settle for "streaming". Download only.
However I found over the years either the websites have made things easier or I was simply trying too hard. Or maybe I just am not interested in the type of video that is served in this way. For some reason it takes much less effort now.
To make sure I am not imagining this, I decided to try one of the author's examples.
I chose projectfreetv.so
1. I followed a link on the main page for some TV show I have never seen.
2. I read the HTML.
3. I noticed /watch/?aff_id= URL's.
4. I chose the first one, 493165, and followed it.
5. I read the HTML.
6. I noticed a URL pointing to a website that serves TV shows and followed it.
7. I read the HTML.
8. I noticed a URL pointing to an MP4 file.
9. I downloaded the file.
I assume I got the TV episode on offer. The screen size is a little small but the file was about 89MB and appeared to be the full episode.
Total time: less than 10min
What did I use? sed, netcat, less and ftp for the download. The entire process is a one-liner.
If anyone has some more examples to try, please list them. I would welcome the challenge.
Interestingly, no matter what the user-agent string, I am not able to view this without Javascript.
Precluding cautious web users from reading is somewhat ironic given that this article is about web security, if indeed that is what this is about. It's probably not intentional, just oversight on Forbes' part.