Mogulus broadcasts to over 8500 concurrent viewers



Mogulus broadcasts to over 8500 concurrent viewers
Originally uploaded by Gubatron.

Today at noon Joost did another one of their live tests by broadcasting 3 concurrent March Madness NCAA Basketball games. The quality could be better, but I won’t give a final opinion after they finish their testing periods and when they finally activate p2p streaming on live, currently it’s all coming from their servers.

However tonight I went to mogulus.com and I was amazed to see the amount of users it can support concurrently.

Some dude was (ilegally) streaming Fox Sports (before the mogulus team would catch him and shutdown the channel), some soccer game from La Copa America, and the entire platform had over 10 thousand concurrent users.

On that single channel, after I took this screenshot it actually peaked at 8645 concurrent viewers. Some interesting details, is that this was a soccer game, not common among americans, but very common among hispanics. Mogulus has no advertisement whatsoever, it’s all word of mouth. I guess live TV on the internet could be a great business

Just imagine what’ll happen with the Olympics, or when we have the next Fifa world cup, which was pretty hard to watch over the internet last time while we all were at work and no US TV channel cared for it. Viewers will flock by the 10s or 100s of thousands, and they’ll all be trackable. Joost better pulls this off with p2p, it seems it will be very expensive doing it with a client-server scheme.

My question now is…

Should YouTube buy Mogulus.com Streaming Technology to do YouTube Live?

[LISTEN] Daft Punk – Live in Japan (2007) and New York


This post is thanks to one of those new treasured playlists you can find at MyBloop.com

Japan, December 2007
Hit play and enjoy the Daft Punk concert, or Dafunk Fest@ Makuhari Japan, December 2007



Find more of Daft Punk in MyBloop and buy whatever you can to support the artist.

In Coney Island, NY, Aug 2007

You can also hear a pretty sick recording of the concert played here in New York, Coney Island last summer. I don’t know how they recorded it, but it sounds pretty decent for being recorded from the crowd. It’s cool to hear it, makes you feel as part of the crowd. Can’t wait for them to come back, won’t miss their next concert.



Funny Detail if you hear both concerts
One funny thing, is that it almost seems as if they were playing exactly the same tracks on both concerts, no improvisation of any kind. For all we know, the Real Daft punk could be at home, they send a couple guys with helmets, play a long ass audio file, and do an awesome light show… whatever it is, it’s an awesome party with all that people around you dancing to the loud music and crazy light show.

After hearing both, let us know which crowd you think had more fun, New York or Makuhari?

Safari 3.1 Benchmark part II – VS Firefox 3.0b4

This is the Part II of Benchmarks between Safari 3.1’s JavaScript engine and Firefox. Last Benchmark was done against Firefox 2, and Safari destroyed Firefox’s Javascript engine, in some aspects being up to 7 times faster.

So I was curious and I downloaded and tried the benchmark on Firefox 3.0b4. to see how much Firefox 3.0 will improve its Javascript performance, key to today’s web applications and the future of the web.

After seeing the results, I say Kudos to the Firefox 3 team, they’ve improved considerably their JavaScript engine and that only makes me glad cause I won’t have to switch to Safari. 🙂

I will not make any tests on HTML rendering, if you find any benchmark results on HTML rendering, please leave links on the comments section.

Once again, here are the results side by side:

FIREFOX 3.0b4
========================
RESULTS 
(means and 95% confidence intervals)
-----------------------------------------
Total:                 3876.6ms +/- 0.9%
-----------------------------------------

  3d:                   489.0ms +/- 1.3%
    cube:               193.8ms +/- 1.2%
    morph:              138.2ms +/- 1.5%
    raytrace:           157.0ms +/- 3.8%

  access:               594.2ms +/- 5.6%
    binary-trees:        57.4ms +/- 5.9%
    fannkuch:           246.0ms +/- 0.8%
    nbody:              219.8ms +/- 13.6%
    nsieve:              71.0ms +/- 2.1%

  bitops:               470.4ms +/- 0.7%
    3bit-bits-in-byte:   67.8ms +/- 1.5%
    bits-in-byte:        90.8ms +/- 1.8%
    bitwise-and:        177.4ms +/- 1.1%
    nsieve-bits:        134.4ms +/- 0.5%

  controlflow:           42.4ms +/- 1.6%
    recursive:           42.4ms +/- 1.6%

  crypto:               257.2ms +/- 1.2%
    aes:                 87.4ms +/- 1.3%
    md5:                 83.8ms +/- 4.0%
    sha1:                86.0ms +/- 0.0%

  date:                 412.0ms +/- 0.4%
    format-tofte:       251.6ms +/- 0.6%
    format-xparb:       160.4ms +/- 0.4%

  math:                 502.0ms +/- 2.2%
    cordic:             188.0ms +/- 0.5%
    partial-sums:       231.2ms +/- 5.2%
    spectral-norm:       82.8ms +/- 3.6%

  regexp:               275.6ms +/- 1.0%
    dna:                275.6ms +/- 1.0%

  string:               833.8ms +/- 0.7%
    base64:              98.6ms +/- 1.4%
    fasta:              228.8ms +/- 3.2%
    tagcloud:           166.2ms +/- 0.6%
    unpack-code:        218.6ms +/- 0.5%
    validate-input:     121.6ms +/- 0.6%
SAFARI 3.1
========================
RESULTS 
(means and 95% confidence intervals)
-----------------------------------------
Total:                 3368.8ms +/- 1.0%
-----------------------------------------

  3d:                   414.8ms +/- 1.9%
    cube:               132.2ms +/- 2.4%
    morph:              144.6ms +/- 4.1%
    raytrace:           138.0ms +/- 0.6%

  access:               520.4ms +/- 4.1%
    binary-trees:        78.6ms +/- 11.3%
    fannkuch:           231.4ms +/- 2.0%
    nbody:              149.2ms +/- 8.1%
    nsieve:              61.2ms +/- 3.9%

  bitops:               449.6ms +/- 2.4%
    3bit-bits-in-byte:   69.8ms +/- 9.6%
    bits-in-byte:        99.2ms +/- 4.6%
    bitwise-and:        167.2ms +/- 2.3%
    nsieve-bits:        113.4ms +/- 6.7%

  controlflow:           91.2ms +/- 4.7%
    recursive:           91.2ms +/- 4.7%

  crypto:               247.2ms +/- 2.3%
    aes:                 81.2ms +/- 2.5%
    md5:                 83.8ms +/- 4.6%
    sha1:                82.2ms +/- 2.0%

  date:                 306.4ms +/- 0.5%
    format-tofte:       146.6ms +/- 1.4%
    format-xparb:       159.8ms +/- 1.0%

  math:                 454.8ms +/- 1.3%
    cordic:             174.4ms +/- 1.6%
    partial-sums:       193.8ms +/- 1.2%
    spectral-norm:       86.6ms +/- 4.4%

  regexp:               209.6ms +/- 0.7%
    dna:                209.6ms +/- 0.7%

  string:               674.8ms +/- 2.2%
    base64:             103.8ms +/- 9.0%
    fasta:              177.0ms +/- 1.0%
    tagcloud:           136.0ms +/- 4.6%
    unpack-code:        136.0ms +/- 1.7%
    validate-input:     122.0ms +/- 2.6%

Almost there. Only in Flow control and recursion it beats Safari, the rest needs to improve, however, it’s improved a lot comparing to the previous version of Firefox.

The machine used for this test is a MacBook Pro running Mac OS X Version 10.4.11 with a 2.33 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo and 2GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM.

Six Degrees Havana

Try to experience the magic of La Havana from the point of view of a Cuban. Excellent episode of this travel series.

Six Degrees Havana

Six Degrees Havana

Toby Amies goes on a photo safari with street photographer Leslie Sinclair, is invited to witness how Cubans celebrate their daughterÂ’s coming-of-age by surrealist Damian Aquiles and while enjoying the Havana high life at a tobacco festival fashion show, falls head over heels for…

Joost™ the best of tv and the internet

New Safari’s JavaScript engine Kicks Ass!

So I downloaded yesterday the latest Software Update for Mac OSX and it included an update of the Safari Web Browser, which I had taken for dead ages ago, I’m a hardcore Firefox user.

Today I read about the new updates, and I read something that caught my eye at Mackinando.com.

it executes JavaScript six times faster than the rest

I go to the Safari Site, and they compare themselves with a previous version, Firefox, and Opera (not IE, not even worth mentioning)

I couldn’t believe my eyes, so I googled for “JavaScript Benchmark“, and tried the SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark onboth Firefox 2.0.0.12 and the shiny new Safari 3.1.

The machine used for this test is a MacBook Pro running Mac OS X Version 10.4.11 with a 2.33 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo and 2GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM.

Here are the results side by side:

FIREFOX 2.0.0.12
========================
RESULTS 
(means and 95% confidence intervals)
-----------------------------------------
Total:                 15365.4ms +/- 1.7%
-----------------------------------------

  3d:                   2386.6ms +/- 7.9%
    cube:                733.0ms +/- 20.8%
    morph:              1269.8ms +/- 9.4%
    raytrace:            383.8ms +/- 37.1%

  access:               1386.2ms +/- 4.8%
    binary-trees:        201.6ms +/- 0.6%
    fannkuch:            294.8ms +/- 5.4%
    nbody:               691.2ms +/- 8.9%
    nsieve:              198.6ms +/- 1.5%

  bitops:               3461.2ms +/- 0.4%
    3bit-bits-in-byte:   275.8ms +/- 0.6%
    bits-in-byte:        248.2ms +/- 0.7%
    bitwise-and:        2765.2ms +/- 0.5%
    nsieve-bits:         172.0ms +/- 4.7%

  controlflow:           153.4ms +/- 0.7%
    recursive:           153.4ms +/- 0.7%

  crypto:                527.2ms +/- 0.5%
    aes:                 230.8ms +/- 1.2%
    md5:                 147.4ms +/- 0.5%
    sha1:                149.0ms +/- 0.6%

  date:                 2551.8ms +/- 0.3%
    format-tofte:       1449.6ms +/- 0.3%
    format-xparb:       1102.2ms +/- 0.8%

  math:                 1312.6ms +/- 12.8%
    cordic:              497.4ms +/- 12.0%
    partial-sums:        501.6ms +/- 1.6%
    spectral-norm:       313.6ms +/- 36.1%

  regexp:                501.0ms +/- 0.2%
    dna:                 501.0ms +/- 0.2%

  string:               3085.4ms +/- 10.3%
    base64:              914.6ms +/- 3.4%
    fasta:               676.0ms +/- 35.4%
    tagcloud:            441.4ms +/- 0.6%
    unpack-code:         846.8ms +/- 25.4%
    validate-input:      206.6ms +/- 1.1%
SAFARI 3.1
========================
RESULTS 
(means and 95% confidence intervals)
-----------------------------------------
Total:                 3368.8ms +/- 1.0%
-----------------------------------------

  3d:                   414.8ms +/- 1.9%
    cube:               132.2ms +/- 2.4%
    morph:              144.6ms +/- 4.1%
    raytrace:           138.0ms +/- 0.6%

  access:               520.4ms +/- 4.1%
    binary-trees:        78.6ms +/- 11.3%
    fannkuch:           231.4ms +/- 2.0%
    nbody:              149.2ms +/- 8.1%
    nsieve:              61.2ms +/- 3.9%

  bitops:               449.6ms +/- 2.4%
    3bit-bits-in-byte:   69.8ms +/- 9.6%
    bits-in-byte:        99.2ms +/- 4.6%
    bitwise-and:        167.2ms +/- 2.3%
    nsieve-bits:        113.4ms +/- 6.7%

  controlflow:           91.2ms +/- 4.7%
    recursive:           91.2ms +/- 4.7%

  crypto:               247.2ms +/- 2.3%
    aes:                 81.2ms +/- 2.5%
    md5:                 83.8ms +/- 4.6%
    sha1:                82.2ms +/- 2.0%

  date:                 306.4ms +/- 0.5%
    format-tofte:       146.6ms +/- 1.4%
    format-xparb:       159.8ms +/- 1.0%

  math:                 454.8ms +/- 1.3%
    cordic:             174.4ms +/- 1.6%
    partial-sums:       193.8ms +/- 1.2%
    spectral-norm:       86.6ms +/- 4.4%

  regexp:               209.6ms +/- 0.7%
    dna:                209.6ms +/- 0.7%

  string:               674.8ms +/- 2.2%
    base64:             103.8ms +/- 9.0%
    fasta:              177.0ms +/- 1.0%
    tagcloud:           136.0ms +/- 4.6%
    unpack-code:        136.0ms +/- 1.7%
    validate-input:     122.0ms +/- 2.6%

Comparing with Firefox, the overall result of this test was that it’s 4.56 times faster.

However, if we look test by test, there are areas where I feel embarrassed for Firefox.

Bitwise Operations
For example, Bit-Operation tests in Safari 3.1 are 7.7 times faster in Safari, being the case of the bitwise-AND (&) operator the worst of them, Safari performed bitwise-and’s 16 times faster than Firefox

OUCH!!

String Operations
So you’d be curious now about String operations, which is probably a lot of what goes on with Javascript, and Ajax, parsing those XML results and what not, maybe the bitwise & won’t hurt us that much given that not many programmers today are smart enough to use them for web programming.

When it comes to String operations, Safari 3.1 was 4.5 times faster than Firefox 2.

Kudos to the Safari Team, I thought there was no point in having Safari until I did this benchmark. I guess they don’t want to let go of Web Browser users, maybe they make millions every month with ad-clicks on Google generated with the search field they have at the top of the browser which is set by default to do Google search.

Once again the saying proves it self

“Competition is good”

Let’s hope this will make the Firefox team think more on Javascript improvements with the upcoming Firefox 3. Once it’s release ready, it’ll be worth it running this benchmark again and see where it stands.

Update (March 20th, 2008)

I’ve made tests on Firefox 3 beta 4, You can see the results here. Tests have been made again on the same Macbook Pro. The improvements of Firefox 3 are notable, however, on the mac, Safari still wins.

[Poll/Bet] What version control system do you use?

About Version Control

Source: wikipedia.org

Revision Control (also known as version control (system) (VCS), source control or (source) code management (SCM)) is the management of multiple revisions of the same unit of information. It is most commonly used in engineering and software development to manage ongoing development of digital documents like application source code, art resources such as blueprints or electronic models, and other critical information that may be worked on by a team of people. Changes to these documents are usually identified by incrementing an associated number or letter code, termed the “revision number”, “revision level”, or simply “revision” and associated historically with the person making the change. A simple form of revision control, for example, has the initial issue of a drawing assigned the revision number “1”. When the first change is made, the revision number is incremented to “2” and so on.

Some Version Control systems
I’ve only mentioned the most popular ones I’ve seen during my career, but I know there’s tons of commercial revision control systems that are supposed to be great, however, these ones do the job, are free, and lots of developers know how to use them.

My favorite one is subversion (having used CVS) in the past.

Here are links to all these projects:

How to reset your Joost profile on Mac OSX

I’ve noticed Joost tends to not refresh the content of their channel Line up unless it resets its User Profile.
I’m not sure if this trick works on Windows, but it certainly does work for Mac. (Please leave a comment if it works the same way on windows, I don’t see why not, all they have to do is check for the alt-key modifier as the application starts up, should be the same thing)

  1. Close Joost if it’s open
  2. Hold the ‘Alt’ key and Click on the Joost Icon
  3. You should now see a dialog to reset your profile

Having done this, all the newest Channels and existing channel lineups should be refreshed.
Enjoy

About Joost
Joost (pronounced /j ooːst/ “Juiced”) is a system for distributing TV shows and other forms of video over the Web using peer-to-peer TV technology, created by Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis (founders of Skype and Kazaa).

Joost began development in 2006. Working under the code name “The Venice Project”, Zennström and Friis assembled teams of some 150 software developers in about six cities around the world, including New York, London, Leiden and Toulouse. According to Zennström at a 25 July 2007 press conference about Skype held in Tallinn, Estonia, Joost has signed up more than a million beta testers and is on track for an end-of-year launch.[1]

The teams are currently in negotiations with FOX networks. It has signed up with Warner Music, Indianapolis Motor Speedway Productions (Indianapolis 500, IndyCar Series) and production company Endemol for the beta.[2] In February 2007, Viacom entered into a deal with the company to distribute content from its media properties, including MTV Networks, BET and film studio Paramount Pictures.

Source: wikipedia.org

Hispanic Blogs write about MyBloop.com

MyBloop-mania spreads no hispanic blogs: