I'm trying to load a video to youtube.
I've done this for many years now.
Last time less than a month ago, without any trouble.
Since a week the loading hangs on "loading 0% ..." and hangs forever.
This happens with Linux Mint 21 and Linux Mint 20.

The video format is not relevant : tried some mp4 and avi.
Re-loading files already sucessufully loaded in the (near) past hangs
the same "loading 0%..."
The size of the video is not relevant (anyway it's a few MB)
There is not Copyright problem (just a family party)
And it's not a porno (my g@d NO!)

The loading of the same file from Win11 (booting in win, or running Win
from a VM (Oracle VM under linux mint)) works like a charm.

Summary:
- same IP
- same youtube user
- same ISP
- same ... everything

I've googled with no success :-(
Thanks if you have any idea/suggestion
:-)
p.s.
after loading the video (from win) I can edit it (name, description ...
anything else) from Linux without any problem.

ambaraba <ambaraba@none.nn> wrote:
> - same ... everything

You left out important information:

Browser used on Linux: ???

Browser used on win: ???

If the browsers used are different, then not "same ... everything".

On 2024-09-16 12:41 p.m., ambaraba wrote:
> I'm trying to load a video to youtube.
> I've done this for many years now.
> Last time less than a month ago, without any trouble.
> Since a week the loading hangs on "loading 0% ..." and hangs forever.
> This happens with Linux Mint 21 and Linux Mint 20.

It's not a "Linux" problem. Instead, it is something about your web
browser that is either breaking the upload itself or perhaps just
failing to update the status display.

It is possible that the upload is happening, even though it says "0%".
Can you monitor network traffic to see if the upload is being sent
despite what the progress line says?

You should also tell us what browser you're using along with any ad
blockers and/or other browser settings that might interfere with
JavaScript code on YouTube.

I can assure you that in general, uploading to YouTube from Linux works
just fine. I did it yesterday, with an hour-long video nearly a
gigabyte in size. I was using the Chromium browser with no extensions.

On 9/17/24 02:19, John-Paul Stewart wrote:
> It's not a "Linux" problem. Instead, it is something about your web
> browser that is either breaking the upload itself or perhaps just
> failing to update the status display.
>
> It is possible that the upload is happening, even though it says "0%".
> Can you monitor network traffic to see if the upload is being sent
> despite what the progress line says?
>
> You should also tell us what browser you're using along with any ad
> blockers and/or other browser settings that might interfere with
> JavaScript code on YouTube.
>
> I can assure you that in general, uploading to YouTube from Linux works
> just fine. I did it yesterday, with an hour-long video nearly a
> gigabyte in size. I was using the Chromium browser with no extensions.
You and Rich are right.
The problem is the browser.
In Linux and in Win I use Firefox .
In Win it's OK in Linux is KO.
If in Linux I use Vivaldi or Chrome the loading is completed in few secs.
I could try FF in Linux with no addons, but honestly because I have a
very easy alternative ...
:-)
THANKYOU !

On 17/09/2024 07:50, ambaraba wrote:
> On 9/17/24 02:19, John-Paul Stewart wrote:
>> It's not a "Linux" problem. Instead, it is something about your web
>> browser that is either breaking the upload itself or perhaps just
>> failing to update the status display.
>>
>> It is possible that the upload is happening, even though it says "0%".
>> Can you monitor network traffic to see if the upload is being sent
>> despite what the progress line says?
>>
>> You should also tell us what browser you're using along with any ad
>> blockers and/or other browser settings that might interfere with
>> JavaScript code on YouTube.
>>
>> I can assure you that in general, uploading to YouTube from Linux works
>> just fine.  I did it yesterday, with an hour-long video nearly a
>> gigabyte in size.  I was using the Chromium browser with no extensions.
> You and Rich are right.
> The problem is the browser.
> In Linux and in Win I use Firefox .
> In Win it's OK in Linux is KO.

Tell me about it. After my bank bought the online share trading firm I
used and decided to 'integrate' it with a new website, I was totally
unable to access some of it with Firefox under Linux.

For a time I had to use Firefox on an XP virtual machine.,

I reported all the bugs in detail. They never fixed all of them. I moved
to a different share trading platform . They still send me statements
for the empty account.
I still use the current account and attendant shit web software

Why are people who design websites so insistent on using one pixel wide
light grey borders on boxes that need filling out, over a white background ?

And place them at random locations off screen?

> If in Linux I use Vivaldi or Chrome the loading is completed in few secs.
> I could try FF in Linux with no addons, but honestly because I have a
> very easy alternative ...
> :-)
> THANKYOU !

--
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities.”

― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de
Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de
M. de Voltaire

On 9/17/24 12:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Tell me about it. After my bank bought the online share trading firm I
.....
FF on linux with all extensions/addons disabled works like a charm
The extensions disabled are here
https://ibb.co/Zc6qyBr
HTH
:-)

On 17/09/2024 11:50, ambaraba wrote:
> On 9/17/24 12:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Tell me about it. After my bank bought the online share trading firm I
> ....
> FF on linux with all extensions/addons disabled works like a charm
> The extensions disabled are here
> https://ibb.co/Zc6qyBr
> HTH
> :-)
>
Not with my bank it didn't
I ran a completely bare install. No joy

--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Why are people who design websites so insistent on using one pixel
> wide light grey borders on boxes that need filling out, over a white
> background ?

You can blame Jory Ive of Apple for bringing out the one pixel wide
light grey coloring so everything looks flat and lifeless.

You can blame Google's Material Design guides for popularizing the
iphone "all must be white" shit into web pages.

On 17/09/2024 13:27, Rich wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Why are people who design websites so insistent on using one pixel
>> wide light grey borders on boxes that need filling out, over a white
>> background ?
>
> You can blame Jory Ive of Apple for bringing out the one pixel wide
> light grey coloring so everything looks flat and lifeless.
>
You mean it wasn't Lennart Poettering?
But Apple, that figures....
Never let functionality get in the way of 'artistic creativity.'

> You can blame Google's Material Design guides for popularizing the
> iphone "all must be white" shit into web pages.

Wait till your eyesight goes and you start blowing up the website size
and pushing the important stuff off-screen

--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 17/09/2024 13:27, Rich wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Why are people who design websites so insistent on using one pixel
>>> wide light grey borders on boxes that need filling out, over a white
>>> background ?
>>
>> You can blame Jory Ive of Apple for bringing out the one pixel wide
>> light grey coloring so everything looks flat and lifeless.
>>
> You mean it wasn't Lennart Poettering?

LP can be blamed for a lot of bad things, but the very light grey on
bright white is not his baby.

> But Apple, that figures....
> Never let functionality get in the way of 'artistic creativity.'

Yep. And then google's great need to ape everything Apple resulted in
their adoption of the same stupid 'artisticness'.

>> You can blame Google's Material Design guides for popularizing the
>> iphone "all must be white" shit into web pages.
>
> Wait till your eyesight goes and you start blowing up the website size
> and pushing the important stuff off-screen

Slightly already there, although I do set Firefox's "zoom text only"
setting as the google idea of "zoom whole entire screen" is just
totally asinine.

But the result is sometimes overlapping text where some idiot
/designer/ thought it proper to include css to force fixed width boxes
for their tiny text on their 300dpi macbook monitor. Nevermind that
HTML natively already sizes those same boxes to fit content if they
just leave things alone.

On 2024-09-17, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Tell me about it. After my bank bought the online share trading firm I
> used and decided to 'integrate' it with a new website, I was totally
> unable to access some of it with Firefox under Linux.

Normally I can do my banking with Seamonkey (a Firefox spinoff)
under Linux. But when I went to activate a new credit card, I
wound up on a different page where things hung. Firefox didn't
work either. So I went to the bank and explained my problem.
The first thing the staffer asked was "What browser are you
using?" I replied, "Firefox" - and he said, "Never heard of
it." Basically, if you don't use their anointed browser (Edge,
although Safari is also tolerated), you're persona non grata.
I pointed out that this is a form of discrimination - this
touched a nerve, since the bank person wasn't Caucasian.
I got him to let me use his terminal, which of course was
running the approved browser, and the credit card setup ran
perfectly. At least I managed to waste as much of the bank's
time as they wasted mine, and I got the satisfaction of walking
out of the branch muttering about "digital racism".

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On 9/16/24 1:03 PM, Rich wrote:
> ambaraba <ambaraba@none.nn> wrote:
>> - same ... everything
>
> You left out important information:
>
> Browser used on Linux: ???
>
> Browser used on win: ???
>
> If the browsers used are different, then not "same ... everything".

I've had better success using Chromium for YouTube uploads.