Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Plans Media Player for Linux?
theancient1 writes "According to this article, Microsoft is considering releasing a Linux version of Windows Media Player. 'Paul Boudreau, Microsoft's programme manager for music and entertainment, said at a briefing on the software giant's plans for digital media: We see a need for Unix players and are working in that direction, including Linux.' Of course, a little quote is quite a bit different from actually seeing a product, but it's still not exactly expected."
Which did not work at all.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
This is going to be a really predictable thread.. Yadayadayada, it won't be open source, yadayadayada. Assimilation. Blablabla.
Just see if I'm wrong.
*borkborkbork*
Does NOBODY remember Netshow for Linux??
Maybe Microsoft is worried that someone will reverse-engineer their streaming media format trying to make a Linux WM player and then publish their DeWM under the GPL. :)
kwsNI
(insert random comment of getting moderated down for not bashing MS)
I'll take any media players I can get for Linux.. I don't really care who's writing it, I think it's important that if Windows Media Player does gain enough share over Real, that there is a way to still play media on Linux.
BilldaCat
Before Linux, Macintosh. For both, however, DRM. And given the RIAA actions against the mp3 sites, I find this the most interesting. It appears to put two giants in head to head competition - with the winner being us.
-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-
My mom's going to kick you in the face!
In the past they've also seen a demand for IE on Unix...
But Unix didn't mean Linux and the product quality wasn't comparable to the windows version at all.
What it says Cheers Whisper
Yes, perfect, let Microsoft release their closed source program for Linux and leave it to us to spend months reverse engeniering it to find all the backdoors in it.
This is the old vaporware trick all over again. M$ are affraid a good OSS video viewer will emerge on Linux. Thus they announce an upcoming version of the MediaPlayer so no one will bother to write/perfect an OSS version.
All mistakes in spelling and grammar are licensed under the GPL.
a sig with any other name would be as witty
It would be good, if it works, I have asf files I need to play, and netshow did nothing...
But then again, if you poke around Microsoft's web site, you can find a place that says a Unix version of media player will be out in a couple of weeks! Of course, it's said this since early '98. So I wouldn't get your hopes up that they are working hard on this, they may be doing what they did in another FAQ, telling people to use microsoft servers because soon every OS will be able to play asf, because the ports are 'coming soon'.
All this said, if they do release it and it is passably ok, I won't have much use for windows anymore, and I would be happy.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Could it be that someone in Microsoft really Sees The Light (TM) and understands that I'm not going to switch OS because of a video clip player? So that if they want me as their market share, they'd make player for my favorite OS. Not a big lot of concept, but somehow it's too obscure for most managers.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
To quote the article:
However, Boudreau said that the Apple Macintosh was more important today because it is used for "relevant content creation", and he confirmed that Media Player for the Mac would have digital rights management (DRM) software built-in.
Microsoft has never really acknowleged any competition from Apple--after all, there isn't much of a server market for Macs. Therefore, it doesn't seem too surprising that they might port a software product over to the Mac platform.
However, Microsoft has admitted Linux to be a major competitor and cause of concern. Can we really expect them to begin porting softare to run under *nix?
This is beginning to look similar to AT&T before they were split up. As Bell Labs was making lots of money selling circuits to MCI and Sprint, the long distance division was struggling to come up with new ways to squash those other companies. It shouldn't be long before Microsoft is doing the same--developing software for Linux, while simultaneously trying to keep the OS from taking over their precious NT Server market.
Personally, I am very interested to see where this leads.
What I should have said was nothing.
THere probably is ging to be a lot of Anti-Microsoft argument here on this thread. But this move by them could be a positive thing. Firstly it is recognition which could work to the communities advantage. Most of the world relies on Microsoft production at the workdesk and will not move to Linux (or toehr OS's) until Microsoft start creating products for it. Whether or not this is sound practice is another story, but use of office (for instance) is pretty much a self fulfilling dream for MS as people use it because it is used elsewhere. If MS start making products for Linux it should help increase it's legetimace in the workplace and thus give it footholds where it may not have been. Anyway, jsut a few thoughts on the fly.
Working for the (other) man
/* begin wishful thinking
MicroSoft released the relevant protocols and allowed the community build their own player(s)!
end wishful thinking */
Say what you mean, mean what you say! But please know what #$@% you are talking about!
I think this is one of these Microsoft announcements to keep people interested and make Microsoft look good.
Don't expect anything usable for about 5 years...
I think reverse engineering something could be good here.
Okay, great, let Micros~1 release a player for linux. Its admirable that they realize it isn't going to disapear and might have a piece of a market they wish to capture (for digital media).
It would be nice however if, instead of just releasing a closed source binary for x86 they either:
a) released the source (ha yeh right)
or b) released binaries at least for Alpha, G4, x86 and Sparc
Colleen:Its a black-hole.
Hunter:Is that a good thing?
C:It is if you want to be compressed into oblivion.
H:Oh.. coooool.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Maybe Microsoft is worried that someone will reverse-engineer their streaming media format trying to make a Linux WM player and then publish their DeWM under the GPL.
Why would they be worried? They could just sue the author and them arrested. This is the New World Order, you know!
Seriously, though, you're probably right. If they are going to be the dominant force in streaming media, they need to support all platforms. And I suppose that they figure it would be better to have an official release, rather than have the Linux users use some hacked client (no offense to people who do hack these sorts of things)
~~~~~~~~~
auntfloyd
Has anybody else noticed that MS continues to say that they are going to release software/clients for *nix desktop. First it was Office then it was a window manager, now Media Player. I'm pretty sure they think that we are stupid, and don't realize that they haven't released anything. Everything is talk, just so we will slow down our efforts at reverse enginneering there technology. I say that we continue to work hard at reverse enginneering and that we show them, that weather or not they want it, we will use thier propritery standards. But this isn't going to happen without a few causalties. I for one plan on working as hard as I can to try to force them on releasing there software for *nix.
P.S.
Does anybody remember the name of Microsoft's Unix, that was released either late 70's or early 80's?
There was recently a post about how if Microsoft did not release its Media Player for Linux it could possibly hurt Linux as Micrsoft was continueing to give out its programs for free for future profits, and destroying Real Player's portion of the market. Though there is still no written plans for Media player for the linux operating system (that I have seen), is it that Microsoft sees that cornering the streaming media market as something more important then a chance to lower linux's ability to compete with windows?
I say Yes! plan on it coming out sometime within the next 6 months and within 2 years expect the server portion of the streaming multimedia program to no longer be free. (there is a price for everything).
Microsoft working on something for Linux users? Why is it suddenly so cold here in Hell? I thought Microsoft was stolid in their proprietary OS (awful as it is). Perhaps great things are ahead. Perhaps not, but even so, maybe we might we even see a (perish the thought) Microsoft Unix clone. Hmmm, what would they call it? Microsux? Damn pigs, they're getting hard to duck.
.cig - what you do after winning a good flame war
"install media player as root" then the program totally messes up the system, for "optimalisation" purposes.. next thing you know your system is as buggy as a smartupdated version of win98.
Guess who will be the big winner?...
Cool initiave though.. :)
Regards,
I seem to remember Microsoft promising Internet Explorer for Linux at least three years ago. I even read, on Microsoft's web site, they were using Linux as the reference platform for all Unixes. Later IE was released for Solaris and HPUX but not Linux. Seems to me that Internet Explorer would be a better objective than a media player.
Maybe this is Microsoft testing the Linux market. They've seen how much Linux people don't like them, and they don't want to throw huge development efforts at it if everyone's just going to tell them where to stick it. So what do they do? Port a small program, thats still pretty useful, and see what the reaction is. Will people tell them where to stick it, or will they welcome it?
As it was said this is a bit of a suprise move, but surely with the advent of whole APIs like the Java Media Framework (JMF) the actual interface of the media player is becoming less and less required. The major problem I've faced on Linux is that there just don't seem to be as many codecs available that take advantage of the hardware so alot of work is done in software to the detriment of quality and speed. If the Media Player on Linux sees these codecs arrive for all to use, and to therefore enable embedding in other applications then excellent, if its yet another enclosed app then its not as useful.
Is there anyone out there trying to create a performance pack for the JMF on Linux ?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Of course its gonna be closed source
Seems like they're getting paranoid about Linux just like they did in 1997. Release another alpha of Microsoft Netshow to scare off the competition. Then abandon it for 3 years until someone starts threatening to release a competing product again. Don't see anyone threatening to release a competing product now however.
Same old Microsoft, same old FUD
Rich
Ok...I have to ask what their angle is?
How do they stand to gain from doing this?
I think this is An attempt to clean up their name
in the Unix world so that people might be more
receptive to releases of their software (think
Office) in the future. (Operating systems are
not their only money maker)
Afterall...Unix based systems are a growing market
and one where alot of users are not all warm and
fuzzy about the Microsoft name.
Microsoft isn't exactly tottally foreign to the
Unix world...remember Xenix? (anyone ever actually
used Xenix?)
Will be interesting to see what they do and
how successfull they will be at this. Of course
that assumes this isn't total vaporware.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
... OK, I am slightly surprised.
/. a coupla days ago)
IMHO, They've given up on the OS I think (sure doesn't Office bring in more cash and Gates is now working on "Windows technologies" or something and their motto has been officialy changed from "a PC on every desktop" to something 'Net related which I can't remember
I mean given up on it as a source of cash.
They've replaced Browser wars with Streaming Media Wars (to quote someone on
Their aim is that every site will buy their server side stuff - Windows Media Server 2000 or some such.
They now that [protocols/server side/Application Service Provider] is what the have to concentrate on to survive.
MS know longer care if this development means less people pirate ^H^H^H^H^H^H buy Windows 98/2k
It's a cunning move.
Don't get me wrong, I like everyone else think that Microsoft is a little big for its own good. However, now that I've realized that AOL is truly Big Brother, I have significantly less antipathy towards the not-quite-so-evil empire that is Microsoft.
But...if Microsoft wants to release Media Player for Linux, DON'T COMPLAIN. Media player would bring a much needed full media application to Linux. Right now, playing most foreign media types in linux is just a nightmare. I don't want to have to use fifteen different applications to watch files because they're in a different format. I would be perfectly content with my friend, Microsoft Media Player, playing all of my .asf files without a care.
--
If there is a God, you are an authorized representative. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
I just wouldn't feel right putting something like this on a Linux box. Kinda like intentionally throwing a virus on my machine.....
The market for streaming media - despite what people say - is not currently the workplace since many offices dont allow audio and lets face it video without audio is a little lame. The home market - where there is a burgeoning number of Linux installations - is where the money is going to be in delivering digital media content and Microsoft has a large and growing stake in content providers.
Not all of the press is going to be sceptical about this and will happily swallow everything Microsoft gives to them - including the spiel of "We're supporting other operating systems" and "Linux is a true competitor otherwise we wouldn't be supporting it"
Sceptic - yes. Happy - sorta, this is needed - especially is web media providers do start to ditch Real for the Microsoft offerings - and who can blame them all the Microsoft stuff is free while Real expect licences for streams. Waiting to see the flames brought on by this - God yeah. ;o)
Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
If Microsoft releases a Linux version of their media player, and we are not satisfied with it, then what? We can't just change it and re-release it can we. We have to hope that they improve it and make one that we like. This is again "stifling innovation". Perhaps that's Microsoft's intention (you know they aren't releasing anything for Linux because they like us). They want to throw some chum in the water and see what happens. I for one don't want ANY Microsoft products on my Linux machine. Not because I hate MS, but because they are a different kind of entity from the Linux community.
Munky_v2
"Warning: you are logged into reality as root..."
Jay
Well. I'm no great fan of M$, but I will acknowledge good work when I see it. There are two items of M$'s that I actually hope they continue to produce, as I like the both very much: The Intellimouse and Office. Yes, Office. It's been very stable for me in the past, and frankly is the only one that does everything I want it to. When I get some projects out of the way, I'll be contributing much code to AbiWord to extend the functionality greatly as I'd like to see something with as many options, etc. as Word has. Excel is most spiffy althought Powerpoint can take a hike. (Not configurable enough).
I know it sounds like I'm advocating M$, but I'm trying to make a point. Of all the media-players available, I end up using M$'s product as well. It's cleaner and clearer than RealPlayer, and RP only works about half the time under Linux anyhow. I'd really like to see M$ contribute some to Linux anyhow. It'd be a first step in the company growing up and being a player in the IT arena, not a bully.
-What have you contributed lately?
This is good, unless they use it as an excuse to keep the format closed/secret/undocumented. The real test will be to see if they allow competing players that play the same streams.
A paranoid person could view this as an attempt to leverage their ownership of a format into a monopoly on players. But we're not all that paranoid, are we? :-)
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Maybe MS finally realized that the real money isn't in operating systems, it's in the applications. Porting to Mac/Solaris/OS2/Linux/BSD/BeOS is a good way to expand their apps market. Flame me if you want, but I'd use media player and office2k if they were out for Linux.
0 1 - just my two bits
Suppose Windows Media Player for Linux is ever released, and works ok. There won't be such a pressing need for linux video software any more. So fewer independent video playback programs will get written, and those that do might not get as much work as they deserve. If this happens, MS could use this to our disadvantage, by ensuring that the Windows version is always slightly more advanced / less buggy etc., ensuring that video playback is always better on Windows than on Linux.
Here is an example of this in action. For a long time, RealPlayer G2 has been available for Windows (and Mac), but only RealPlayer 5.0 for unix. 5.0 was all that many people needed, and it looked possible that a G2 player might be on the way, so the urge for independent programmers to develop a G2 player was not very strong. Real have finally made a G2 Player for Linux, but it's so unstable that it's better to use the Windows player under Wine.
If there hadn't been a RealPlayer at all for unix, then it's quite possible that independent programmers would have written a player, but the existence of the 5.0 player stymied that. As a result, Windows is still a better platform for viewing G2 streams than Linux.
That example could apply to Windows Media Player. However now there is an extra factor. It would be in Real's interest to have as good a Linux player as possible, subject to development costs. But MS could do well out of putting time-wasting for loops in the code, or not debugging it very well. In this case, MS is more dangerous than just any closed-source vendor, because their main product is in direct competition with Linux. I think this sounds ominous.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
This is really not surprising. To be able to make the Windows Media Player format the de facto standard, they have to make it possible to use it on other platforms than windows.
General opinions about the quality of microsoft software aside this'll be great. Only - its not going to happen. :)
Empty, vauge promises about the distant future are so very very easy to make and just as easy to cast aside.
How often have microsoft 'changed plans' about their flag ship products? Again and again and again..
If they are that flexible with their core products, how likely are they going to be to carry plans for a Linux media player all the way to fruition. The article spoke about 6mths for the Mac version, the linux version an unspecified amount of time after that.
I'm not even sure it can fairly be called vapourware. Its just that 6mths is a _eon_ online - especially multimedia technologies. If the last few months with napster and mp3 and decss et all have show us anything its the volitility of the marketplace.
I'll be optimistic and say MS are actualling going releases it but I'm not going to hold my breath. I'll be _really_ optimistic and say that in 6mnths I won't care about their product any more.
... with eskimo chains i tatto my brain all the way...
Fact: MS knows that many people dual-boot for items that run only under Windows (games, etc).
Assumption: Probably very few people will reboot in order to run the WiMP (Windows Media Player).
Conjecture: But people WILL try to get WiMP running under Wine.
Fact: The more people that use Wine the better Wine gets.
Conclusion: I expect to see a lot of "utility" type programs come out of Redmond for Linux. These utilities will be those that aren't important enough to actual own Windows for, but are still "nice to have". The quality of the Linux ports will be just enough to keep us from revolting (and writing out own), but not enough to make us happy (Open Source, non-sucking software).
Reasons: As a best case scenario, MS wants to drive people from Linux back to Windows under the guise of "better integration". As a worst case scenario (for them) they want to sell some software, however little, to other platforms. In all cases, MS doesn't want Wine to get any better, particularly in the hot area of "media".
(This post powered by Mozilla!)
--
Java banners:
Bad for users because Java kills Netscape
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
and they try to take control of the new market.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
vaporware
Microsoft wants to make ASF (their streaming media file format) a standard: http://www.microsoft.com/asf/standards.h tm.
In this context, it would be a good idea for them to offer a non-Windows player. Real has Unix players, Apple is considering other platforms than Mac and Windows.
If this is not just a rumour, I guess MS will have to put a lot of money into the development. Porting their Media player to *ix certainly is quite a task...
Moderate this up... M$ is just snowballing the community into not producing an OSS player.
I got a version of a microsoft media player (for linux) over a year ago. It actualy worked, but I felt very uneasy when I installed it as root! (what else did the install do?).
One feature will be that it will cause Linux to crash on a regular basis and display a blue screen of death
Typical Micro$oft tactic. Scare away developers by announcing that they're coming into this space.
And from what I heard yesterday, I think this will work... Hear is a hint: You will NEVER see a Micro$oft Streaming Media Player that actually works for Linux!
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
The thing is Linux lacks a good web browser and a good media player. Microsoft doesn't want to be the first to help Linux out. Once there are a few released then Microsoft will waltz in with a version of IE/Media player/Office that is better than them all.
Currently they are hoping Linux will die before they need to pay attention to it. If the lack of decent software for Linux continues they'll never have to release them.
PS, This is OLD news. I heard about this years ago.
Nobody will switch OS just so they can watch certain video clips.
However, many people might *not* switch OS because it would *stop* them from watching video clips.
The lack of good linux videoclip support won't repel current linux users, but it might stop current windows users from becoming linux users.
Then again, I'm not sure that WMP will have a positive overall effect on the linux video playback capability, in the long term. It may squash some good offerings that are just getting started now. It might be manipulated by MS to ensure that Linux is not *quite* as good as Windows for video playback (you might decide to write a video player if the current situation is dire, but you probably won't bother if the current situation is merely tolerable).
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
On the longer run, once they have market dominance, they can establich lock-ins and stop porting the latest and greatest player (or delay it enough to make it annoying) to "force" people to move to windows.
For me, there is only one solution: they release the spec of the media. So linux player can be made by the community. This may delay a player to be available, but it will be avilable as long as they keep releasing format updates.
-bernard
Microsoft shows a sign of initative in releasing some Linux software, and everyone goes off the deep end saying that this is a part of a hidden agenda...ie Microsoft is going to peek into /etc/passwd, Microsoft is trying to fend off legislation, etc etc.
So let's look at this realistically. Linux is steadily becoming a choice OS for a lot of people. And if you people remember the Halloween Documents, Microsoft knows that Linux is also a choice OS, and is a source of competition. So wouldn't it make sense that Microsoft would be looking to port their apps to Linux? To me, it's a VERY smart business move. Microsoft knows the potential of Linux. Hell, Microsoft actually has a few Linux boxes on their campus for R&D purposes (learned by way of a relative who works for Microsoft's MoneyCentral division). And you think they're saying "screw you" to Linux?
I realize that Slashdot is a Linux-centric board, but whether you'll admit it or not, Microsoft is making a wise move here, even if this idea is still just that, an idea.
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
I'm not surprised that Microsoft is considering writing a version of the Windows Media Player that works under Linux.
.ASF/.ASX format used by Windows Media Player than the .RM/.RAM format used by Real Networks. I won't be surprised at all if Microsoft makes both a server program and client program for Windows Media Player in Linux under GNU General Public License guidelines, a move that could be extremely bad news for Real Networks since Real doesn't seem to be very inclined to write a Linux version of their streaming media server and client software.
Remember, you can get a lot more information on the
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
I'm not sure if many of you tried using the Netscape plugin called 'Plugger' ...It's pretty fancy, and you can find it on Netscape's plugin page. I can pretty much stream all my movie files/avi file/etc/etc with it, and it doesn't require too many programs to be installed. Here is a copy of the mime types:
audio/x-mpegurl
audio/mpegurl
audio/x-mpeg-url
audio/mpeg-url
image/x-sun-raster
image/sun-raster
image/x-png
image/png
image/x-tiff
image/tiff
audio/x-wav
audio/wav
audio/x-basic
audio/basic
audio/x-psid
audio/psid
audio/x-mpeg
audio/mpeg
audio/x-mpeg3
audio/mpeg3
audio/x-mpeg2
audio/mpeg2
audio/x-mod
audio/mod
audio/x-midi
audio/midi
video/x-fli
video/fli
video/x-msvideo
video/msvideo
video/x-anim
video/anim
video/x-sgi-movie
video/sgi-movie
video/x-dl
video/dl
video/x-quicktime
video/quicktime
video/x-mpeg
video/mpeg
Whoa, big paste.. =] It uses programs like xanim, and another free one, that I can't rememeber the name for now. I recommend checking it out. The readme from the program is pretty good too, and will tell you what you need to do, and download.
Even if M$ should deliver a usable MP for linux, the fact remains that they will control the "standard", and as such it is only a lease on the functionality, and not the panacea that some would have us believe (the same would be true of almost any M$ product eg. word). It would provide short term benefit in usability but long term would stiffle competition yet again, discouraging others from developing competing products.
And in the worst case, once real has collapsed, the linux MP could be gradually broken, leaving
the situation even worse than it currently is. M$'s practices are monopolistic as always, taking a short-term loss in exchange for long-term market domination and extortion once a monopoly has been established.
rather than call for multi-platform support, we should be calling for fair business practices and gov't action to limit M$ right to pursue monopolistic practices.
(P.S. monopolistic illegal only if harm to consumers? how are we being harmed? an imminent monopoly by a company already proven to abuse its monopolies should be enough, especially in an industry where market share and interoperability are a major obstacle to entry.)
My blog
Even my female collie could write better media players than these two products. I think the way to go for video streaming will be Apple's QuickTime. Of course, that's no mean feat, considering that Microsoft's programmers are motivated by the wrong things. Probably filters down from their corrupt management. As for RealPlayer, when using their player, I notice that there is an almost constant buffering. And it's terribly slow, even after executing a renice -19 on the associated process. I know it's only a Beta, but surely they could have improved it slightly. At least they're not anti-linux, which is about the only thing that they have in common with my female collie. She's very sweet, too, which I can't say about their Media player.
no sig
1) MS wants domination in the streaming media market
2) Non-windows users have no other choice than Real, and that keeps Real alive and prevents MS from reaching 1)
3) MS decides to release WM player for alternative platforms and to start aggressive partnership with content providers
4) Real dies, WM becomes the new standard
5) MS starts delaying non-windows versions of WM player, and eventually cancels them.
6) "Linux for multimedia ? nahhh, you can't even play streaming movies from the internet"
I wonder if they'll be able to get away with it after the DOJ trial, though...
What we really need here is an open standard (IETF, where are you ?), possibly based on a new technology (wavelets/fractal, whatever works best) so that it gains wide acceptance.
If content providers and MS get to decide the specs of future audio and video formats, prepare for SDMI-type crap...
KICK IT!
Quicktime has movie formats that you just can't show!
You ask for codecs, "please?" but they still say no!
You've missed two 'Net films 'cause your player don't work!
But Apple keeps on acting like some kind of jerk!
You gotta fight
for your right
to moooooooovies!!!!
Valenti caught you watching DVD's and he said "no way"!
That hypocrite says "fair use" ain't okay!
Man, lawyers and lawsuits are such a drag!
They drag you into court if you use the anchor tag!
(Busted!)
You gotta fight
for your right
to moooooooooovies!!!!
"If you want to watch movies don't use an OS you can share!"
But we know the situation is just unfair!
Now guess which bad bunch might give us movie toys--
I don't know what they're plotting, but it's Bill G's Boys!
Topic sez it all...maybe MS even tho they are releasing w2k is going to start a solid *nix development team. Oh well my speculation for the day...
Another reason is market saviness and future positioning. Facing a possibility of being broken up into three divisions, this will already start development efforts for a "software" or "media" division.
In the post on the homepage it said that this release was unexpected. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't believe that this is all they are doing for Linux. Considering the way that Microsoft usually works, I'm surprised they haven't announced their very own distribution of Linux. Do they have the same mindset they had about the internet - do they think Linux is just a fad that is going to die out in several years? Considering the way their marketing minds think, Office for Linux should be on the shelves soon. It would be smart of them to start making software for Linux actually - not that I would like to see it though.
I distinctly remember Microsoft announcing this a full year ago on a page at Microsoft.COM! And promised that a "beta" sign-up program would be forthcoming.
Sure enough, a couple of days later, the page was no longer available.
Microsoft will never release a Linux port. At least not anytime soon. If they did, half of American companies would jump ship. Office and their EEE (embrace-extend-extinguish) Internet "technologies" are the only things keeping half of all businesses from switching to Linux.
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Independent Author, Consultant and Trainer
One of the few mentionings of Linux on microsoft.com has to do with "How to Uninstall Linux."
It has become apparent that Microsoft isn't worried about Linux domination (from their press releases and such), yet they now see a need for writing a media player for Linux?
Now that I've got your attention, I think this is a crock of s**t. MS's turf is being impeded by the linux revolution (it's "infereor," they said it themselves), and I only see a negative hidden agenda here.
Would IE ever work on Linux? Not in my lifetime (I hope). So what's up with a media player. My speculation is some sort of user data collecting "feature" assuming the source has been written well enough to compile. In addition, I think they are going to try to lock people out of using their *nix systems if possible. MS applications under the Windows environments to more dammage to the system than good (believe me, I fix them on a daily basis at school), and frankly don't care to get in the habit of using MS software on my beloved linux boxen.
My $0.02!
This is the MS way of slowing down others to develop yet another player for Linux because the real trend now has moved from the browser war (Netscape vs IE) into the streaming and new media (audio/video) war.
When they say "six to nine months" (which really has to be translated into "1 to 2 years" if not more), it means that a lot of water will have passed under the bridge and it's a ingenious way of distracting the "Linux for desktop" threat from the launching of W2K.
I think (and hope) that this obvious attempt to slow Linux's broader access to desktop will be thwarted by the launching of Mozilla and (if possible) an OSS media player (among other things).
Then, it will just be a question of having a nice and finalized office suite (Koffice / Gnome office), few more games... et voila !
BTW, what have happened to the IE port for Slowlaris ???
Microsoft saying that it is getting involved with Linux, even in this small way, gives me the boo-boo-jebies (how do you spell that word again?).
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind if MS wrote a functional Linux player for distro. But we all know what happens to people who have MS in their corner. Brrrrrr!
If I could figure out their damn angle then it wouldn't be so bad, then they could be stopped before the knife got plunged into tuxes back.
They actually had a version to download well over a year ago.
"[H]e confirmed that Media Player for the Mac would have digital rights management (DRM) software built-in.
Within the next six to nine months, Microsoft plans to roll out a version of DRM that will enable consumers to manipulate and back up their own licence stores of video and music clips... [T]he software giant has yet to decide whether users will do this themselves or whether it will be kept on a secure site."
The media companies need this sort of functionality to go on existing - as the DVD debacle has shown, no amount of security features will have long term viability. What will therefore be required is a method by which consumers can demonstrate ownership of a license to posess music. MS wants to control the means by which this license is stored and validated.
This might not be the eventual standard but MS being MS, they'll want to get their foot in the door early. To control the standard they'll need to have their SW on as many platforms as possible - otherwise there would be Linux specific licensing authorities.
---No Judgement Just an Assesment---
----------Probably Wrong------------
-wibble-
is availiable.
:-).
I can't remember where real put it though... But I have it on my machine. It works, just as well as version 5 did [not too well, that is]
Feh. Yeah, right. It'll be a cold day in the core of the latest Intel chip before Bill Gates gets superuser access on my Linux box.
I have been having a recurring thought (nightmare) about Microsoft and what they are actually up to. Consider that Bill Gates didn't get where he is by being a fool.
Someone said recently that M$ is in a tough position because they are expected to always make a profit. I think Bill G. knew exacly what he was doing when he "integrated" the web browser. I think he knew, even wanted to be declared a monopoly. If the courts break up M$ he is the big winner.
Imagine what the market will be like when this happens: Office for every platform, yes Linux too. Windows Media Players for every platform. Internet Explorer, and on and on.
Right now, M$ is stuck in their own Windows world, they can't wait to be broken up.
-=) A Good Kingdom is Coming (=-
I'm not so extreme that i insist every piece of linux software must be OSS. However, you know what happens when MICROS~1 get's a strangle hold on a 'standard' or any area of a market. Do you really want *all* streaming content from the 'net coming from an M$ product? can you imagine the control they would have? Among all the reasons to fear MICROS~1, I think by far the most important one is their potential to control the internet. I don't want to be one of a few OSS freaks who share content on the net with each other while the other few billion net users enjoy content I can't even touch..... Dave-0
I use RealPlayer to listen to Dr Demento, because otherwise I go thru withdrawal pains :-( Otherwise I don't use it or any of the others; I've seen too many reports of the sneaky crap they send back to HQ. Real's jukebox does it, and I remember M$ something did it. So no proprietary media player, except for my hypocritical addiction to staying demented....
--
Infuriate left and right
The question is: Will what they write on other platforms be any good? The reason that WMP is a good viewing platform for Windows is because they have full access to and knowledge of the little bits of API that accelerate graphics under Windows. The same applies to Apple with QuickTime (especially QT2). Ever tried comparing speed between WMP/ActiveMovie's QT rendering under Windows with the QT2 program? ActiveMovie really flew, was more reliable, and far less clunky to operate.
By /.'s own admission, XWindows can be notoriously tricky to write for. The head start that MS programmers normally have (by writing solely for Windows) is gone, and WMP for Linux's only advantage will be the ability to play ASF files. It will certainly make interesting viewing if and when it dows show up.
- "How do we do it? Volume!" - The Bursar of Unseen University.
I'm not trying to sound like your typical Linux nutcase.. But I don't trust Microsoft. Look at everything they have done. Look at what they did with Java development tools. Everyone who was actually stupid enough to use MS Visual Java ++ or whatever the hell it was called is now faced with non-standard java rule-sets in the tools, along with the looming fear of Microsoft just canceling the project.
I feel that Microsoft is dropping these Media Player comments to make it a higher valued product, gain more market share.. without actually going to Linux. Or if they go to Linux, they will gain the market share.. then say the heck with Linux after they have finished squashing Realnetworks. I would NEVER use a Microsoft product under linux, because the odds that they would continue to evolve their product on that plateform is slim to none. Nope.. Stick with products from companies that actually LIKE Linux.
-Matthew
Technetos, Inc.
yeah, right
#DEFINE QUESTION (2b)||(!2b) -- William Shakespeare
It would require that you run it as root, shutdown ipchains, allow telnet logins and give away your root password!
The score you deserve.
:-)
That was a good laugh.
I take this a confirmation of my suspicions. MS will announce its own MS Linux release by the end of the year. Remember their reaction to the web browser and the Internet..."Embrace and Extend". In this case they'll release their own Linux with support for COM. Of course they'll just increase the cost of all Linux versions of apps to cover the lost NT/win98 revenue. For example Backoffice will be $6000 instead of $5K. Ain't it grand to be a monopoly.
Now that they've announced an interest in the Linux market, I'll wait for whatever they produce. That way I won't have to deal with these "no names" who came out of nowhere to push Linux. Besides, I'm sure with Microsoft's resources, they'll do it better. Uh... Haven't we heard this one before? And Microsoft has legions of people used to doing exactly this kind of thing. The PR machine at Microsoft is apparently cranking up against Linux in the best way possible. How many other companies have gone under because of this kind of announcement? Dave Bennett
Dave Bennett
This move may make it illegal to reverse engineer their protocols for interoperability. MS lawyers may have figured out where the DVD thing is going...... :-)
As RN seems unwilling to support Linux there's not much we can do to help, but Icecast probably needs all the support it can get and IS happy to support *nix.
Microsoft have been claiming for well over a year (closer to two?) that they'll have a media player for Linux. The version they have available won't even play uncompressed .avi's, and has never been updated.
I'd read Microsoft's comments as trying to discourage anyone else from trying to compete, rather than any honest intention to support Linux themselves.
Do we all remember the last time Microsoft talked about releasing their "Media Player" for several versions of Unix? (which Linux was supposed to be one of) It never did materialize - the only thing that they ever released was a worthless, mostly nonfunctional port of NetShow to Linux - it was ugly, bloated (2-3 MB static binary), and didn't work for shit.
I for one don't care - I'll stick with RealPlayer on my Linux box (which at least does what it advertises most of the time). I don't want M$ bloatware on my Linux box. (Consider how lousy the IE builds for HP-UX and Solaris/SPARC were - do we really need the equivalent of that?)
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
The "free market" yahoos can flame me all they want for this. I run a Microsoft free home and I will keep it that way until I see a real change in their corporate philosophy.
To use this product would be to loose sight of why open-source is the only solution that can save us from a world completely dominated by Microsoft. They can keep their garbage.
The Windows Media Player is one of the few things I really miss in Linux; A good media player, (which I must admit I think the later versions are) is a must-have for any modern operative system. So as long as it's fairly stable and doesn't contain any backdoors, I think it would be very nice to have it on Linux. The real question is why MS would want to do this, since it weakens their own platform? =)
I don't want to be one of a few OSS freaks who share content on the net with each other while the other few billion net users enjoy content I can't even touch..
It's too late to prevent that from being the case. Wake up, look around you.
Does the world outside of the linux community really think that we would want MS applications on Linux?
It is my opion that (the GNU) Linux "Movement" is about open standards for applications. Tricks like changing file formats ever-so slightly to force people to upgrade is not the GNU way. With this in mind it has become the dream of thousands (if not millions) of Windows users to ween them selfs off of microsoft software. After quitting my corp job. I was able to kiss all MS software goodby and let me tell you kids It really does feel great. And my computers get used alot more now. ( insert quick Prayer for DVD here ).
Like most Linux users I would rather use a flaky browser then Use IE and promote MS IIS server extensions. Or more to the point I would rather download wav's on a 300baud modem then use MS Media player.
Now to the part I know some of you guys will hate. If you wanted to insure that windows media player did not become the only choice for the next generation of streaming video or audio you should break out your Linux Credit Card And go purchase RealPlayer.
The way I see it, if there is not a quality GPL type project in this area. Then we almost have to support the private projects that fill the need. If realaudio were to lose the desktops they will loose the Streaming Server customers. Which would mean that Linux users would have to use Microsofts Stream Media player for video. And how could we be sure that would be a Quality product. Would we be able to even trust running it? If its our only choice then THAT WOULD SUCK!
Think about how you can help to provid choices. No matter what your OS.
Last one in jail is a fascist.
The subject is enough :o)
For those that don't know, Internet Explorer for UNIX was (is) probably the lamest piece of code ever to come from Microsoft. Netscape on HP-UX isn't very good, but IE is really crap.
There is also this paranoid thought that MS could use it to send info about Linux users worldwide.
Sigged!
now all those CDs I burned last summer from merchandise at #movie-central WON'T be obsolete :)
Well, personally I'm not a huge fan of Windows-anything, but you have to look at this objectively. a) Windows Media Player plays Microsoft NetShow broadcasts. b) Microsoft Netshow *does* kick the crap out of RealAudio, any day of the week, imho, simply because it multicasts, and it's free. Send all flames to /dev/null.
It wasn't an announcement. I was at the press conference, and this was a response to a lot of very hard questioning on the direction of MS's audio tools.
The important (IMHO) thing was not the discussion of a Unix ASF player, but the fact that Microsoft were willing to discuss the licensing of the WMA codecs.
S.
Feh. Yeah, right. It'll be a cold day in the core of the latest Intel chip before Bill Gates gets superuser access on my Linux box.
Do you honestly lose sleep every night worrying about things like this? You sound tremendously insecure. I would suggest hiding under your bed, then the big bad Bill won't getcha!
Suppose that they do something like this. OK, not completely out of the question. So, lots of people start using WMP instead of Real on the servers. 2 things could happen:
1. Real actually comes up with some real prices (sorry, couldn't resist--I've bought their stuff before)
2. Real dies, or all but dies.
#2 is quite scary, because if this happens, then MS could at any time pull the rug out from under the Linux server/client software, if it's closed-source. Therefore, I would be very careful in this matter. As someone who already has 2 flavors of RealAudio, one MP3 stream, and is considering Darwin, I will certainly look at this if it comes to pass--but I will be careful not to help MS if things seem shady.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
I wish I had some moderator points. It was called Netshow. I've used (and since uninstalled) it too. I can't believe that the top scored post in this discussion is a vaporware claim. Admittedly, it looks like they've since pulled it from their site, but check out this Techweb article from 1998.
...to step ahead and kick MS in the ass for once.
Wether Apple releases their movie/streaming video viewer open source or as binaries or hell even a quicktime shared library this would be a perfect oportunity to snag the bone from MS instead of the other way around. They probably even have some code on the table for OS X, now depending how closely tied that is to the BSDishness of OS X it could save them a lot of time and effort...
Heres to someone other than MS stepping in!
Oh and if anyone at Apple is listening, do this and include hooks for DeCSS and I will personally buy the folx who hack it a round of drinks.
Ian Corbett
icorbett@iname.com
Nothing would make me happier than having more cross-platform streaming solutions, but it's highly unlikely that Microsoft will make a viable player for anything besides Windows.
Why would anyone want to support an inferior product just because they don't like MS? I mean really... not wanting to use their products is all fine and dandy, but RealPlayer *Sucks* in comparison. I mean really, horribly, and truly sucks.
So you'd rather us pay for a crappier product? Isn't that part of the reason that people wanted to boycott MS in the first place, they don't want to pay for an inferior product? So now we're supposed to pay for inferior products.
I'm confused.
It doesn't necessarily have to hold true that MS is only considering making a copy of media player for Linux because of some evil conspiracy. I guess it will never occur to anyone that *maybe*, just maybe, they actually just want to take over the streaming media market by making a better product, selling it for less (aka nothing), and then creating players for all the platforms.
I think they should be applauded for making a player for Linux. I mean they could not do it, and just continue taking over the streaming media market, and then you have a situation where 75% of the streaming media out there is in Windows Media format and isn't playable at all in Linux, thereby helping Windows in the desktop market. This move certainly doesn't help them in the desktop market, but it does help them in the media market. It also helps Linux in the media market.
So please, explain to me again why I should be shelling out a whole lot of money to pay for a lousy media player when I can use a better one for nothing?
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Heh, it's been going around that they're working on Media Player for Linux for like, a year. But oh well. I guess in a year the news that they're working on MS Office and Win32 APIs for Linux will finally come out, too, eh? It's all happening
That is what Microsoft does
Design Statements
They have been found to be a monopoly, and are awaiting punishment, rumors or statements of this type may be used to make people feel all soft and warm inside, therefore reducing the level of punishment they receive.
Get a free ipod.
I will be totally surprised if this ever happens. Let's look at a few salient facts - WinXXXX, ALL major releases, even though having the FULL attention and efforts from ARMIES of coders, were comically and consistently delayed. Now, obviously, this ain't an entire OS (and I'd argue that neither are winXXXX), but c'mon. This will obviously only have passing interest, from a limited number of coders at a delay-prone company. If this ever sees the light of day, I'll be an old man and it won't be open source. (JMHO)
mas cerveza, por favor politically incorrect stu
Hadn't someone stated this last year. I distinctly remember an article where M$ was stating that they were going to port their media player and in fact there was a port on their website. Unfortunately, I've never known anyone who could get it to work.
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
I know that they have a licensed the CSS stuff, assuming that this story is true (salt taken), what are the chances of them producing a DVD player for Linux?
Is it paranoid to think that if they produced one (closed source, of course) that it could be detrimental to the DeCSS case? After all, there would now exist a DVD player for the community and all those claims about "we just wanted to play DVDs on Linux" may not be as important anymore. Especially when they could play on that bitterness that exists in this community towards MS.
Wouldn't that be ironic? "Well, you said all you wanted was to play your DVDs on Linux so here is the software player from Microsoft! Use it to your heart's content and don't forget the click-thru agreement!"
Of course, I know that not everyone here is an MS basher. But for a lot of people, being presented this type of option is one heck of a pride swallower.
Disclaimer: This is pure speculation at best mixed with a little FUD. But it is an idea to kick around, snicker at, or even come up with a good list of reasons why it would never happen.
-Veldrane
OS/2? Microsoft was all behind it, until they weren't.
If you lay down with a snake, you'll get bit.
Microsoft has always shown themselves to be a snake pit. They play nice and then screw any partner when it's to their advantage. Why would they be different now?
Here's my take. Microsoft releases a product to stave off the DeCSS and Samba type hackers (ie. someone who will hack the protocol and open source an implementation just because they have no other alternative.) Their fear is that once this is done they have to enter whack-the-mole mode, which several large groups have found to be ridiculously ineffective.
Since the client plays everywhere, Media Player becomes the defacto standard while the hackers are quietly content using MS' closed source solution (Why would I work on writing my own code when I have a decent client already?). Microsoft can now cut off any further development/bug fixes for the Linux client. It is left to stagnate. It takes a year for the hackers to wake up, and another 6 months to develope a client. By this time MS has had time to extend (read, break) the protocol. Everyone now knows that if you want to watch online movies you have to use a MS excuse for an OS.
Don't be played for a fool, people. Don't accept a closed source client or protocol. If they don't release the source and specs, then start asking people why they are letting MS put a noose around their business' neck.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
im surprised no one has mentioned this. but the media player can play DVDs. for some reason you have to add an entry into the registry. but maybe. just maybe, the new version will have this as a full feature. there is no dvd players for linux. this will be it. of course theres also asfs and other microsoft stuff in it too. but people will get it for the dvd playing. and start getting used to the ms formats.
heres how you do it:
Open Regedit, navigate to HKEY_CURRENT_USER > Software > Microsoft > MediaPlayer > Player > Settings. Right-click on the Settings key and choose New > String Value. Name that string "EnableDVDUI" (without the quotes). For
the value, use "yes" (again, without the quotes). Next time you start Windows Media Player, you should have DVD viewing abilities.
I don't know about you, but I am willing to email all the /etc/passwd files off my half dozen BSD and Linux machines directly to the NSA if they want them. They wouldn't do anybody much good.
Are you seriously not running the shadow-password suite on your machines? In this day and age??
Plus they can get extra media attention for their products, because all the news sites will run "MS ports products to Linux" stories for a few days (i.e. every business loves free good news stories about themselves".)
Finally, it can make it appear that they want to help Linux, when in fact, it is more likely they just want to be the only media platform on Linux, which then becomes a standard that they control.
-- Straights are for fast cars, corners are for fast drivers.
This is intended merely to discourage any other company from investing effort and resources in a marketable media player application for the Linux platform. Pure microsoft FUD, plain and simple. There will never be a Windows Media Player for Linux. They'd have to rename it Linux Media Player anyhow, and you know how much they hate lawsuits. But our windows product laid the groundwork for an open source software os like linux and thus we own the rights to our proprietary ms-linux implementation. We'll have compatibility with our ms-java real soon now.
About this games4linux link, couldn't you put up something more interesting than the Apache default page? Won't take more than a minute to write a page...
~
~
~
~
"index.html" 2 lines, 118 characters
This is a good opportunity for Apple from a streaming media perspective. One must not forget though, that Apple has always used their distinctiveness in software as a means to sell their hardware. I think they will want to keep QuickTime for OS X, and leave us penguins out in the cold, so to speak. Am I the only one who still calls it OS X instead of OS-ten?
cat
Ok, I'll give you some K-R4D W4R3Z and you su to root and install them.
Paranoid? I installed Win 98 after installing Linux on what was to be a dual boot machine, and Windows ***TRASHED*** my linux partitions. And by that I don't just mean LILO. I mean it wrote data into the start of each Linux partition and screwed them up. fsck couldn't fix 'em. Now you say there's no danger letting MS run with root privs to install its player on my machine? Experience PROVES this is a bad idea. You are just spouting words. Guess which matters more to me and should mean more to other Linux users?
<IMG SRC="/images/muench/scream.png">
Anyone for a trip through Microsoft's SOul Sucking Booth"?
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
RTFA. In the style of many a Micros~1 delay/FUD/hedge press release, they said they are working "in that direction", then segue'd to talking about Macs.
They want other companies who may have the idea to give up because the gorilla is coming...maybe. RSN. Honest. Maybe.
I'll believe this PR belch when I see BillGatus cuddling a Tux plushie on TV.
( I don't watch TV.)Must run as root
Locks up X
Subversively reports user info
23mb download (per single user install)
Download file is a self-extracting (*.exe) pkzip archive
What do you bet I'm right on at least 2 of the 5?
-=-=-=-=- osjedi uses Debian GNU/Linux. -=-=-=-=-
Does this mean that we will see full two-page ads showing the media player with a Windows titlebar, a mac titlebar one with a doctored motif-ish title bar, like those "IE for Unix" ads?
1. Were Microsoft not to release a WMP for Linux, we'd reverse engineer one in a three month span of time that didn't support their nifty 'copyright protections'.
2. Even if Microsoft releases one, many programmers/users will be unhappy with it and clone a better application that plays the same files, albeit in a longer length of time.
3. Microsoft is looking to displace Real; Real is an easy target, with the insane pricing scheme and all. They've [ms] shown themselves unable to deal with the surge of Linux popularity, so they're going to treat us indifferently, much like Apple.
4. Once we have a client, the server is a stones throw. If MS qoesn't release one open source, one will appear.
Look at ICQ for example. ICQ became popular with Win9x users, ICQ waits on a Unix client. Lots of people, who couldn't live with out it, began to r/e ICQ and clone it. Voila! ICQ releases a Java based client Unixy folks can use. But we don't like it; it hogs memory, crashes, etc. We go back to our clones, and along the way someone writes a bit of OSS server code, someone else writes a proxy, another writes an email-forwarder. It took us a little over a year from ICQ beta release to an functionally superior *nix clone. If there hadn't been that damn AIM distraction, we could have done it in far less. You don't need to worry about being 'left out in the cold'. Nobody ever gives us (the OSS community) a bone, and we've done just fine.
.sig: Now legally binding!
Actually ...
/etc/passwd, as you no longer need to guess usernames.
Half the security of a unix box is in it's refusal to acknowledge the very existence of an account. In other words, you have won half the battle if you get an
As a Microsoft supporter, I do agree with your sentiments. However, I think that some people are just unfairly trashing Microsoft for doing something that nobody thought possible; proposing the idea of porting one of their apps to Linux. I'm willing to bet that a lot of people were surprised to hear this, no matter how off-the-cuff it was.
You can go by Microsoft's history all you'd like, but in doing so, you're really showing an extreme bias against this initative IMHO.
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
As someone who owns both a Mac and a PC, I will admit that Photoshop itself is the same program on both platforms.
... the fonts are nicer, the buttons are cuter, the whole experience is just somehow right in an aesthetic sense. I have a feeling artists respond to that even more than I do, and as a result they have a queasy feeling when visiting a PC. I know I feel a bit of that myself, and that's why I'll probably always own a Mac, even though it would be more cost-effective to do my arty stuff on a PC which I have to own anyway.
But it's so much prettier on a Mac
Of course this is why Linux is absolutely hopeless for artists, and why I'd rather use a SGI workstation than a Linux box, open source movement or no.
D
----
Say what you mean and say it mean!
While true that they've bothered to port IE to some Unix platforms, the problem is that they don't consider a "platform" to be anything more than "a collection of hardware on which Windows does not run in some form". Thus they tooted their own horn about being "cross-platform" with IE for UNIX, while only creating the browser for those hardware platforms on which there was not ever/was no longer a Windows NT port. Forget about Linux on Intel.
There was an article some time ago on Slashdot about winning the temporary battle while losing the long-term browser war. The recent push towards third-generation display technologies (Apple's Aqua + OSX) and de-facto standardization of browser features against IE as a benchmark will extend farther into media formats and the players that are required to use them.
a better troll. Please. Christ you're annoying...ok I clicked on the goddamn dorsai.org page already. Better yet, please just die.
It's not about the client side they worry but about the serverside. Right now using windows media to stream audio and video means excluding non windows and non apple platforms. With a growing marketshare for these windows media incompatible platform that means that content providers are excluding a growing group of people.
Yes, that's exactly right. Microsoft is interested in pushing their server, which will probably not be multiplatform. That's exactly what they did with Netscape. The browser war was never over browsers; anyone who thinks that is a fool. The browser war was about "who controls the client controls the server" -- if you can add extensions to the browser that only your server supports, and your server supports the competition's extensions, too, then you maintain market share. The browser's are free, but the servers are what cost money.
I see this happening with RealAudio and Shoutcast. Already, people are claiming that Media Player gets better quality than RA or MP3. If this is true, then why would anyone use the competition's formats? If MP4 is all that's promised (or is that just rumor?), then perhaps Shoutcast could be the Apache of the media player war.
Further on in the story is mention that WMP will incorporate "Digital Rights Management", which undoubtedly is some form of encryption which will prevent capture and replay of streamed content. Or place in the hands of the seller how that content will be used after a sale has been completed. That was the whole point to DVD encryption -- to give the movie industry the power to control the after-market use of movies. The MPAA's plans blew up on them because they didn't include a Linux player, forcing Linux fans to crack their encryption. Microsoft may well have decided a Linux Media Player is a good idea because it would forestall cracking of the DRM format.
Then again they could just be messing with our minds....
1. Linux users accept this "gift" from MS.
2. MS's streaming video dominates the net.
3. MS adds new "features" to the servers, but only updates
the Windows clients.
Thanks, but no thanks. Video should be an open standard.
Their non-Windows products are all the same:
buggy and a couple of revisions behind the Windows
versions.
They always promise and rarely deliver... they're
just doing this to keep people off their backs.
Until the media group is a different company than
the Windows group, it will be an empty promise.
- It's just an announcement. We all know about Microsoft pre-competitive announcements to stall competing (in this case, open source) product efforts.
- Microsoft wants to dominate the on-line media market. If they accept Linux as a viable operation system (at least in the short term), this makes sense: it gives them a few % more market share.
- If you read the article, you see that their player has the predictable closed-source controls: digital rights management enforced through a binary-only distribution.
I think this is fairly predictable behavior on the part of a large, rational corporation that wants to dominate the market, eliminate competition, and control the use of media. In the long run, I think it is not generally in the interest of Linux users.program for linux? Or any microsoft program for linux? Hell.. I won't even use Microsoft programs on MacOS... 'cause they suck so bad... *sheesh*
I love Shoutcast. OK so it is only audio, but IMHO it beats the living crap out of RealAudio and WMF. It's FREE! It sounds better. The server software is available for many platforms, and there are lots of players available for lots of platforms. It streams an open format (MP3) and doesn't use some kind of proprietary codec. It's easy to set up. There are plenty of internet "radio" stations that already use it. All and all it's great stuff. I am not sure why the technology isn't used by more sites. I think Shoutcast has quite a future in the streaming audio scene. Even if Microsoft eliminates Real, so what? High quality open streaming audio is always be available.
(We should believe them now?)
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
This place is run by morons.
Microsoft releases Media Player for Linux. And maybe even some other 'nixes. (Easy hop from one-to-the-other once you get to the first. Hmmm... Wonder why there's no Exploiter for Linux? Anyway...) MS-MP buries Real and any other contenders. Marginalizes open source initiatives to the point of virtual non-existence. (After all, there MS-MP, it's available on most of the "important" platforms. What's the point?)
MS later decides that there's really "not enough market" in those niche operating systems after all--drops Linux ('nix?) port(s).
Who gains? You get three guesses. The first two don't count.
it would be interestin if it works right, but I doubt it. Did they say anythin about open sourcing it? ;)
Thanks & Linux Long and Prosper
Visit
As a result of the last /. article on the need for streaming media I (1) checked out icecast (1b) compiled it from source (2) tried out XMMS's streaming mp3 feature (2b) compiled it from source (3) spent a couple of hours listening to broadcast audio from greenwitch (4) figured out how to make netscape start the webcast automatically, just by clicking on the .mpu link.
The XMMS streaming audio is solid as a rock. Even without using the realtime priority feature, I couldn't get it to skip. (I guess I could if I tried *really* hard) The audio quality is superb - considering the bit rate and the miniscule speakers on my laptop. Gosh, that equalizer helps, and they do a lovely job of compression-amplifying. If you've been turned off by crappy streaming audio from Realnetworks, you have to try this.
My conclusion is, this totally rocks, and we don't need Microsoft's help in getting streaming media on Linux. Just the opposite I'd say. What we need to do is (1) beat on more sites to give us streaming mp3 (or we won't bloody go to your site, thanks) (2) give the people that are working on free video codecs for Linux all the support we can.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
This is what I feel the AOL/Warner merger was all about as well. Microsoft is positioning themselves to compete against this new media giant by attempting to control the standards by which music and other media are distributed.
What can the open source community do to stop this freedom from being swept away right under their noses? Unfortunately, not much. Soon, new distributable media like CDs and DVDs and other new standards emerging will be using similar encrypted systems and will block the spread of data through the hardware end. There is a very powerful movement in the industry trying to push this through. Don't underestimate it.
It seems to me that the only way to stop this from really taking over (of course the average unix user knows that anything sent to a /dev can also be captured, but most people are ignorant enough not to even bother with this) is to reverse engineer the system. That is why the DeCSS case is so incredibly important.
If these companies have their way, soon, much information will no longer be free, but distributed through encrypted systems. And the freedom that the internet has offered so many people will be swept away by business that profit by controlling it.
Now that we have this I finally can get rid of my Windows partition!
That's because you're a Frikking zealot.
I have a contact who works @ MS who works on the media player team on the Unix test team. He has heard nothing about a Linux player. In fact he was told explicitly that MS does not support Linux for media player and has no plans to.
It is vaguely predictable that by about third quarter 2001 they might offer SQLServer for Linux, and maybe six months later, Word or Office for Linux. If you can't beat them, join them, and they'll see that. It may be a small market (who wants their stuff?) but small may be better than none when your shareholders expect you to sell something.
I must admit with regret that Media Player is the best streaming media solution I've used.
This summer I worked setting up web sites with streaming video for a major record label; we dealt with Real, Apple (Quicktime), and Microsoft.
Apple was the nicest company to deal with; we got to chat with their encoding guys, and they helped us set up exactly what we wanted. Real was OK, though they "accidentally" launched the video a day before they was supposed to. Microsoft was of course heavy-handed, demanding that we remove the "get G2" and "get quicktime" buttons from the page, and not letting us use a redesigned button for their media player (their default one is too big and ugly!).
Yet, when all the links were up and we ran them side by side, Media Player was my favorite. Nobody liked Realplayer (terrible quality, even when it negotiated a higher bandwidth; proxy issues). Quicktime had a very smooth feel (smoother than Media Player), but the detail was low and the video was noticeably crunchy when there was a lot of action. Media player had the best image fidelity/detail, though it was slightly less fluid than Quicktime.
Note, these are with the maximum bandwidth settings; I'm not sure how well each one scales down to modem speeds.
It's sad but true. And it's getting to be such a pain to deal with all three formats that newcomers will be extremely unwelcome, unless they can perform. IMO, the best bet would be to develop a new codec that can work in an existing windows product (QT/Media Player) which is so good it can't be ignored, and make it a free standard. This seems hard and unrewarding, but I can't think of any viable alternatives.
- Tom 7
Jon Katz will punish you for trolling!!!!!11
Lets state the facts here, Xanim quite frankly sucks. Sure it can play postage sized quicktime movies with 4 year old codecs, but nothing recent like mpeg or asf. Sure theres that mpegtv player for linux, its better but its SLOW compared with windows. It gets around 15fps on an mpeg encoded at 30. I'm suprised you havn't blasted them for not making it opensource. MS media player works great on windows and its free. Maybe Xanim would be better if someone actually bought the docs for the codecs and some money got involved. Oh wait, money doesn't mean anything to you. Free this free that, how do you expect a company to make any money? Before you shout redhat and va linux you should look at their stocks. Redhat won't be making money for another few years.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I take issue with your comments about VMWare:
..
1) aren't completely there yet
VMWare emulates all of the standard hardware that is "there" on a PC. The remaining limitations -- IMHO, are pretty trivial
2) don't have Microsoft Certification
It's a virtual machine! It's not an emulator. If Micros~1 software ever was intended to work on Intel hardware as implemented by VMWare, then it *is* by definition certified on VMware (or else VMWare implemented it wrong).
I look at VMWare as a great reference platform for OS testing. Every VM you create on any system is essentially using the same hardware. Try to get that level of consistency from your local PC dealer.
just an opinion: the fact that i don't use microsoft products (aside from the obvious lack in quality, etc) because i don't agree with microsoft's business practices will not change if they start making software for linux.
Beware.
How soon we forget the Halloween documents.. *sigh*
Microsoft realizes that there is no defacto standard for multimedia content for Linux yet..Its a valuable inroad for them. There is no defacto standard not because we lack one, but because the community as a whole hasn't firmly decided on any. We have streaming audio, video, etc, but as a whole, we simply haven't settled on a standard yet.
So, Microsoft being Microsoft, they'll attempt to move in, and pollute one or more pre-existing standards with proprietary Microsoft-backed "improvements", and bingo, they have us where they want us..now they control the way content gets delivered.
...You want that? Go right ahead. The rest of us will stick to what we know to be a (tm) Good Thing. Open standards, decided by consensus, not Mickeysoft.
Bowie J. Poag
Project Manager, PROPAGANDA For Linux (http://propaganda.themes.org)
Bowie J. Poag
This place is run by morons.
Actualy, its run by all of us, and yes, we are all morons.
Amber Yuan (--ell7)
"and dear god does this website suck now." -- CmdrTaco
That clearly shows it's a user error. Nothing to do with MS trashing anything.
Not all of us.
I am aware that NS4.x is not as standards compliant (especially Cascading Style Sheets ) as IE5. But I don't care. I still use NS4.x at work on an NT box. Why ? Because Microsoft is monopolistic bully whose business practices are repugnant.
For that reason alone I avoid their products whenever possible. It is a simple matter of ethics, continued support for their products is a validation of their business practices. Yes sir, I will use an inferior product if the ethics of the compan with the "better" product is non-existent.
er. I mean microsoft is doubleplusgood. AOL is doubleplusungood. yes.
Amber Yuan (--ell7)
"and dear god does this website suck now." -- CmdrTaco
You're referring to Microsoft's NetShow Revision 2.00, Build 251 beta (aka Media Player), the very first Microsoft application for Linux, released in Oct. 1998. This is a stripped, statically linked x86 ELF binary. 2MB. http://linuxmafia.com/pub/linux/ apps/netshow_linux
The above is now the main distribution point for that software, since Microsoft removed it and all mention of it from its Web pages. It's not half bad, though I'm keeping it available mostly for historical reasons.
I'll thank you not to decide what I "should" do.
they will never develop WMP on linux. this is vaporware and will always be vaporware. this press release is for the benefit of the millions of content providers that they are, and will be, strong-arming into switching their content to WM format. now they can say "and the linux version is coming soon." plain and simple.
Actually, porting between Linux and windows is much easier then porting between windows and the Mac, and this was from reading John Carmacks plan file. He said that since Linux and windows are both modern OSes, you could use a lot of the same code, where that code would probably crash a Mac.
Anyway, it might not be that hard for them to port Windows Media Player to Linux, although, I would think that they might want to change the name...
Amber Yuan (--ell7)
"and dear god does this website suck now." -- CmdrTaco
Thanks for the insight. It seems to me that Microsoft is just trying to capture the entire streaming market share by doing this. Clearly, their motive is to have a lock on the server side.
I doubt they even care about the client side, since that's not where the money will be made. (just look at HTTP clients/servers)
Yet another proprietary protocol that the world doesn't need.
GRH
send flames > /dev/null
Only 'flamers' flame!
send flames > /dev/null
Only 'flamers' flame!
I think you are taking umbrage with the wrong "end" of this point. That point doesn't read to me as a condemation of VMWare for not supplying a "Microsoft certified" environment, but as a comment that there are a group of people who need to see that certification to spend their money. Just because you understand that "it should just work" doesn't mean Joe Consumer will understand (or care). We may not agree with such a group, but trying to ignore them won't make them go away.
Seems the driving force behind many Open Source projects is the need for specific functionality. Once a vendor says get-lost to OSS people (Adobe who?), OSS people redo their software, usually doing it better"^). (Go Gimp!) SO, does this VAPORWARE fill the Vacuum that would otherwise draw in the open source people, or is the media content these days going to be distributed in proprietary formats? (eg: Sorenson codecs)? Is it a depletion of intertia, or admission by the bill! that Linux is real! JDW
One existing problem is that many programs that use directx do not work at all (or properly) in vmware. This is because of direct hardware access which is not available in the VM. I believe they are working on this, but it is in fact not there yet.
However, I do agree with your argument that certification as such would be irrelevant in most cases. Every program not using direct hardware interfaces likely works perfectly. WHQL certification of programs IMO, would be perfectly valid under vmware except for a couple of particulars (I use vmware daily and the only problem I have ever encountered is with programs using directx).
If MS is smart and wrote their code using wxWindows and OpenGL, their code would run seamlessly on both Linux and Windows. On the same hardware with good drivers available to both, they should have the same performance too.
1. Install Microsoft Windows Media player for Linux ? 2. Oh, It seems it needs to run as root. 3. It kind of works ok, people start to like it. 4. A new codec comes out, media player connects to windows update. 5. On your next reboot LILO is gone, Welcome to 2000
You can forget about me downloading or using your player unless both the media format and the player program itself are both open source.
Streaming media is nice, but it ain't a necessity. I don't need you, M$ - I can DIY. That's why I got Linux. Keep that in mind.
-Ben "karma whore for the AnonCowards" Cantrick
Why in hell are you even asking yourselves what format should be used?! Quicktime sucks on Win32 (I've ALWAYS had troubles with it), the new player looks nice (but is totally user-unfriendly) and the nag screen is even worst than MS (since MS gives MediaPlayer for FREE and Apple tries to make money on the back of users too). MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4. 'nuff said.
Frankly, having access to the source code for everything running on my machine has allowed me to sleep very well at nights. Running applications that cannot be audited- especially applications from Microsoft- does not.
I have been writing applications for MS platforms since day one. Until October 1999, NT COM, ATL, and MFC were my breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
However, over the last three years of this project, NT has became so difficult to maintain and develop for, that my team was collectively forced to give up on MS altogether. For linking reasons, our legacy code had to be recompiled and redeployed for every new release of the MFC, DLL mismatches at client sites alone ate our technical support to death, our development machines had a 3 month lifespan between total reinstalls. Why? Because Microsoft was constantly screwing around with the architecture of MFC, the configurations of our machines, etc. Need that new feature? You must install Service Pack X. Oops, sorry about that registry entry. You didn't need it anyway.
Having found Linux, I for one, am in programmer's paradise. I have no interest in running Microsoft code anywhere except in VMWare under Linux with the network bound to the host machine. That way, I know that MS software can't chat with Redmond without my permission, and if the NT installation blows itself up, I can cleanup afterwards with 'rm -rf vmware/nt' and laugh heartily to myself that I finally managed to get the tiger into the cage.
Hope to see you here someday,
-HopeOS
It's not that simple. Most of these codecs are encumbered by patents, so there's no hope of an open-source player even if you could figure out the file formats.
You misspelled 'gluteus'.
I think what we really need to do is get out there and let content producers know what we want. Every time you go to a web site and they have a format not available to Linux etc let them know what you want.
However, as much as we all like to act holier than though I think many people would start using M$ streaming media if the majority of the content was in that format. What are the chances of them OpenSourcing it? Negligable I would say. So I think it all comes down to the fact that we need to push content producers.
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do." - I don't remember
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do." - I don't remember
I would see this as a good thing. But time and time again MS have used this kind of thing to destroy products/OS's/Companies later down the line.
Why doesn't the Linux users create thier own open source streaming media format and port it?
If it was open source and free, you would (at a guess) see a lot more servers using it.
A good point about Quicktime. If MSFT did port to Linux, they could hold off QuickTime. Noone said it had to be "as good as" the Windows MediaPlayer. In fact, if they plan well, they can make it just slightly inferior, so that people have less of a reason to choose Linux.
And then they can make sure that anything they do release for Linux uses MediaPlayer, locking you into the MSFT way.
Will in Seattle
They're trying to attack the Linux's average uptime!!!
Let's make a Linux Media Player for Windows!
Sigged!
Thanks for the tip! I didn't realise there was such a standard as streaming MP3! This works with WinAMP under NT, I just tried it. That's it, I now have a legitimate excuse not to visit some sites. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
For those worried that Bill Gates is making the move to introduce Windoze Muck Player to Linux and wondering why the hell QuickTime is stuck with its head up its ass.. have hope! It's logical to surmise that with the market pressure that Mr. Gates will bring into the streaming industry by proposing a Linux client, our pal Mr. Jobs will finally wake his ass up and port QuickTime QUICKLY. No offense to Stevie boy but he better realize that WMP will run over the market if it get to Linux users before QuickTime does. Apple has the opportunity to save its ass and maybe get some comraderie going with Linux users by porting more of its products over.
-----
Linux user: if (nt == unstable) { switchTo.linux() }
Those who laugh at you for you having a Mac.. are the people who constantly call you to fix their PC.
MS porting their stuff to linux is to be expected. It fits in with their standard practice of monopolizing the market for somthing, and linux media players would be a perfect toehold on our boxes for MS. Id say that we should avoid ALL MS linux products, not only to keep our systems safe, but to make sure they don't do for linux media players what they did for OSs and web browsers.
You download an RPM/elf bin file from the net, install, and start to run. A nice friendly seggie occurs.
You try to run it again. This time you get the message "Unable to find MSVB60.dll. Please click here to update your files." You press OK, and you encouter your system shutting down. (oh my) You boot up again, and to your horror, encounter MS Linux 2000.
Seriously, though, I'd not trust a thing on my linux box that came from Redmond. They're too hostile about the entire thing, and who knows how security conscious they were about making the media player. They might even code a backdoor into it, who knows. Now, if I could untar the download and compile it myself...
I see it as a move to try and take over the online media market. Fortunately, I think linux users know enough about what they're doing to not fall for it. Blast, we need those codecs, though.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
M$ not trashing anything?? Really? When I booted on an NT CD to install it, it checked the drive for errors and decided to change the number of heads and cylinders on it!!! I had to make a linux bootdisk and restore them to default with fdisk (and hdparm to get the factory defaults of my disk). Guessing the end blocks on my linux partition was a long and painfull task. I knew it was taking around 1.6Gigs and started on the first cylinder. But, I have to admit, installing and using a simple Media Player shouln't trash up a maintained filesystem.
Yes, lets port GTK to all OSs, apple/win32/beos/RiscOS etc... even amiga and QNX, lets monopolize the market, then lets have a boycott GTK day because its monopolizing the toolkit market.
Who is surprised by this? Certainly not I. Anyone with half a brain (or more) realizes that Gates & co. are planning and coding,as we "speak",their own distribution of Linux in hopes of releasing it in the near future. Which they hope the business (read as "non-technical") world will quickly adopt and herald as the de facto standard, and Open Source and GPL be damned (by MS, not I.("Praise OS & GPL!")), become the industry standard. Of course the MS Legal Department will throw much legal mumbo-jumbo and $$$ at all who seek to oppose them and keep the fate of Linux' future in peril for some time to come. So each and every programmer, sysadmin and enduser who values our dear OS should scrape together the equivalent of $1US and forward it to either the OSS or the FSF, so we can prepare for the coming war. Remember, a superior OS alone cannot win a courtcase. 'nuff siad, non-anonymous coward YtRabbit YtRabbit@netscape.net
ftp://ftp.fccn.pt/pub/NetShow/netshow_linux
Whee
Hands in my pocket
There seems to be a lot of hatred for Microsoft now days, and a lot of it is well deserved. I do not think the hatred points to their products in as much as it does the companies business practices, thus Microsoft leaves a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths. The unfortunate part is this company is big enough to market to all platforms. I wonder what an operating system agnostic Microsoft would be like? With the possible breakup of Microsoft around the bend, perhaps we will live to see this in our lifetimes. Indeed Microsoft products available on not only Linux, but Beos, BSD and perhaps even Solaris. Now thats a concept to really think about. Of course they would have to revamp their quality assurance departments, as the Linux community has zero tolerance for buggy commercial products, and I believe that any possible MS product would be viewed with highly critical eyes at least until they proved themselves to the community.
So to me MS needs to do some major adjustments to their current business model. The first step is to acknowledge there is a lot of money to be made in other markets such as Linux and BSD. With these communities growing every day, I fail to see how anyone with any degree of intelligence in MS marketing and planning can continue to ignore us. Instead, by embracing these platforms they actually increase their profits. Unfortunately the old saying that Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely seems to be very true in Microsoft's case.
I had to ask myself with my current dislike of Microsoft business practices and products, would I buy a MS product if it were available on Linux? This is a hard question for me, because of my dislike of the company. However, thinking back many moons ago when IBM did much the same thing (after all where do you think MS learned how to be a monopolist from?) they have managed to do a complete 180 degree turn around. The IBM of today is a much better company than of yesteryear. I wonder if Microsoft can do the same? If MS were to really change and at the same time produce a really quality product with good support I might even consider giving them a second chance. This is saying a lot comming from someone who does target practice with a picture of Bill Gates in the center. Those .50 cal rounds really do a good job on that bullseye.
Paranoid? I installed Win 98 after installing Linux on what was to be a dual boot machine, and Windows ***TRASHED*** my linux partitions If you installed Linux first, then you deserved what happened to you. Anyone who knows anything about Linux knows that you install Windows First, then always create a a rescue disc so if you need to reinstall windows, you can mount your root partition and resetup Lilo. And it is not just Linux. Windows 9x also kills out the NT bootloader as well. Now, go play XBill and stop being so paranoid
What other media players? You are not refering to Real Player 5, the last official release for Linux, are you?
Micro soft with their hot grits down everyones pants if they get their claws into Linux machines.
:)
What are the bets that it will require root? There is no way I am running any MS products on my Linux box.
Will it be open source?
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
Well, you've got 2 out of 3 of your wishes right now - an open source video streaming format with an open source server. Yes, yes, it's from Apple, and it's ASPL not GPL, but the source is there for you to play with, modify, and redistribute (as I understand the ASPL).
Heck, they've even been decent enough to give you pre-built linux binaries (I'm assuming x86 linux, though), as well as FreeBSD & Solaris.
Why in the hell would I watch mpegs thru a remote X session? I'm talking about files on a local drive in two seperate operating systems. X just happens to be slow on the desktop, it wasn't meant for high end multimedia. It displays remote xterms fine and some programs, but forget anything serious.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
- subsolar
And how many years ago did they say they were going to release IE for linux????
Whatever your feelings about vi vs emacs, emacs is surely innovative.
But here it is again for anyone not listening:
It is my firm opinion that one of MicroSofts best strategys for the future is placing itself in a very good tactical position by withdrawing mostly from the Client/OS market and redeploying into the Server market. Yes, Linux is winning along with BeOS and MacOS X. In a few years, the Open Source nature of Linux should produce a graphic user interface that is comparable to what exists in Windows 95/98. At this time, Windows is simply not a viable product anymore because it's competitor is just as capable (for the ordinary person) and free.
Assuming the previous paragraph occurs, Microsoft should release for Linux Internet Explorer 7.0 and Windows, oops, Linux Media Player 8.2. Of course these would be closed source binary downloads, but thats ok because an appropriate component technology (ActiveX, Java JINI/JavaBeans, DOM, Etc.) would allow them to be still fully exploited by content developers.
IE and WMP/LMP are the client side components that complement MicroSoft's Internet Information Server and the Windows Media Server. Together these four programs are capable of serving and displaying just about any kind of information today. MicroSoft currently has in operation a terrabyte database serving space-to-ground satellite photos using IIS. With IIS handling all the nasty details of processing that much information, WMS fills the role of streaming selected small portions of a huge database to the client side WMP/LMP.
MicroSoft has invested an enormous amount of effort into creating the infrastructure necessary to operate such large scale structures of information. In addition to IIS and WMS there exists Windows 2000. These three products comprise the strength of MicroSoft's tactical position in the future server market. IIS and WMS would most likely not be ported to the Linux OS to preserve the investment already made into Windows 2000. In a dominant server position, revenue is no longer derived from client side applications - IE and WMP/LMP are distributed free of charge to encourage lock-in to IE/WMP/LMP/IIS/WMS storage formats. Revenue is instead derived from contractual creation, servicing, and extension of very large collections of information. Thus the revenue breakdown shifts over from a very large number of small payments (individuals purchasing Windows 95/98) to fewer number of large payments (corporate/governmental initiatives). The net difference between the two revenue values is unknown at this point, however the obvious investment made by MicroSoft to this date would seem to imply that MicroSoft expects the two values to be comparable or in favour of the corp./gov. revenue.
MicroSoft is not a simple enough corporation to assume that the above mentioned strategy should be their singular purpose. The extreme given above would require more than a GUI standard be implemented within the Linux OS. Supporting applications such as word processors, spreadsheets, and small to mid-range databases would also have to be commercially or freely available as well for MicroSoft to retreat into becoming a server-centric corporation. MicroSoft is hedging it's bets by developing consumer versions of Windows 2000. Entertainment software will most likely decide the fate of the consumer Windows 2000, Linux does have good enough support for entertainment, and with the recent Open Source of OpenGL, competition does hold the promise of remaining even in the forseeable future.
Well, does any of this hold water? Please cast your distributed vote by replying to this post.
Installed Microsoft software.
Right.
I'll add to that that Microsoft seemed to have been beta testing their OSes on VMWare.
I don't know what version of VMWare, but it shouldn't matter.
Real is working on RealPlayer 7 for Linux. It's in beta form still but my Microsoft team got ahold of a copy for a demo that Bill was shown on how well Realplayer 7 works in the background on a Linux box.
At least Linux will finally have some decent multimedia capability. Too bad Microsoft has to write the code for it.