Slashdot Mirror
Darwin Streaming Server Beats Real, Windows Media
pinqkandi writes "Network Computing recently ran an extensive shootout of video streaming servers, in areas from setup to quality to buffering times. The free, open source Darwin Streaming Server, which streams QuickTime content, edged out costly and closed source Windows Media & RealVideo streaming systems." Well, it edged out Real. It blew Microsoft away.
There are ways to make quicktime videos without purchasing Quicktime pro, but most of them don't work very well, or use older versions of the quicktime mpeg4 based/inspired codec.
Can the darwin streamer be used to stream any other kind of media?
Tarkin support? Tarkin? Tarkin, anyone?
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Even if it only "edged out" Real in terms of streaming speed/whatever, it certainly blows the doors of Real in terms of quality.
Their "fractal" algorithm or whatever they're calling it has been ready for retirement for the last 3 years. Can you say artifacting? Especially in medium to high motion scenes. At low bandwidth it's about the only way to go, but for broadband applications, it's just ugly.
Not only that, but I'm glad to see another alternative in streaming media. More choices is inevitably better.
*everything* is Orwellian to cats.
This would be a lot cooler if *everything* about Quicktime were open (including codecs). It's pretty silly that I can run the streaming server on Linux but I have to go to Windows or Mac to view the content.
---------
get your war on
and if you have to use 1.5 Mbps, why not just use MPEG. I would say WM and Real both do well at low and mid-range bitrates, but the sorenson codec sucks at anything but high bitrates.
The review didn't mention anyting about frame rate or video size. quality was mesured from screen captures, so I guess video framerate and audio are not part of the streaming media experience.
They also should have used S-video for all captures. The osprey 500 DV applies a filter when you use the IEEE 1394 port. This is not an apples to apples comparison. Why not just use the winnov card for all captures?
They also didn't mention how many streams a single server could handle. Real requires a heavy duty server, QT doesn't realy have specs, and I would bet Windows Media server does the best job.
And WTF is with the apple networking icon? Is there realy a need for that?
Microsoft troll...
A friend of mine just bought a new laptop (his 1st computer actually) w/ XP pre-installed. I installed WinAmp for him and he ALWAYS uses it now because it's clean and fast and just a nice program.
All it took was a little knowledge to avoid Microsoft lock-in, keep the information flowing!
I have wondered for the longest time why a number of news outlets use Windows Media on their web sites, when the quality / stability totally blows. Maybe they're Microsoft trained gnomes who only use FrontPage, write ASP, and use IE. I don't know. But QuickTime blows the $hit out of everything else. I just wish more people recognized that.
You only need all the extra stuff if you're doing live broadcasting. You don't need a $2000 video digitizing card; if you have a Firewire camcorder, you just need a $15 Firewire card (assuming you don't already have Firewire; a lot of hardware does these days, including everything from Apple). As for the rest, Apple has its own broadcasting program ready to ship as soon as the MPEG-4 licensing people come to their senses, so soon you won't need Sorenson Broadcaster or the Sorenson 3 Pro encoder. Apple's program will be free, but probably Mac-only. Still, it's going to be cheaper to buy a G4 to do your live digitizing than to pay the Real server tax.
This space unintentionally left unblank.
This would be a lot cooler if *everything* about Quicktime were open (including codecs). It's pretty silly that I can run the streaming server on Linux but I have to go to Windows or Mac to view the content.
:P
Amen brother.
This seems to be the trend... GNU/Linux is perceived as a server platform, as much as the commercial Unices are. I know several Unix admins that exclusevely use Windows as their desktop box using X servers/telnet/ssh to connect to the Unix boxes. Even they really can't view a Unix platform such as GNU/Linux as desktop (not because it doesn't have what it needs, but because they can't come to terms with it).
Take Lotus Notes... you can run Domino Server in Linux, but if you try to access the mail you are out of luck because Notes is Windows-only.
Most desktop frontends end up being Windows-only, while the engine is running on some Unix. Hell, HP, IBM and other Unix vendors encourage this!
Take mysql and CVS... there has been nice and friendly win32 graphical tools long before any was available in Unix. It seems people like it this way
In the end it is exactly as you said it: we end up powering the services and providing content that we can't view ourselves
cheers,
fsm
"We created screen shots of the same scene from each player at different encoding rates: 56, 128, 256, 384 and 512 Kbps."
So they're not even testing motion or sound quality?
If I had moderator points right now, you'd get a +1 insightful from me.
I've been working with streaming media for a while - windows media (yeah, I know, that's one of the reasons why I quit). Guess why this corp would go for WM - because "everyone" has WMP, and they get the server "for free" with Win2k server. Real is extremely expensive (they'd have needed the unlimited license), and they don't even consider QuickTime an alternative - they don't want clients to have to download a player, anyway.
Lessons: 1. corps don't want their clients to have to download a player. 2. They don't want to pay horrid licences (MPEG-LA - hear that? You're losing one hell of a business with that licensing scheme!).
You are saying that one of the reasons you are using WMP is privacy concerns? Then have I got news for you; WMP keeps a log of all the video's that you have played, and teh liscence agreement that you agreed to could be interpreted to say that Microsoft has the right to use this information in any way they choose.
Pick another reason for using WMP, please.
I've got it and it is...OK. It is slow as molasses, however. To run the quicktime plugin (or windoze media) you have to wait for the wineserver to start and then for the app to start. Lots of swapping going on there.
It IS nice that for now we can have quicktime working on linux but it is not THE answeer. THE answer is for frickin' Apple to release the goddamn specs for the codec. If Apple wants to compete for providing internet media (this goes for M$ or anyone else too) then you have to use widely available standards so that no one is locked out because they use this or that OS. The frickin' OS shouldn't matter one bit.
If you want to provide a media service on the OPEN and NONPROPRIATORY internet, then use open standards or fully publish your codecs so developers can produce apps to VIEW your media.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
An AC wrote:
;) Microsoft's developers don't seem to mind the sky high cost of Visual Studio.Net. Lets see Microsoft give that away for free!
> Its a classic Bait and Switch. Apple will always charge money for
> video compression deliverred stock in their normal Quicktime, and
> will never offer source to the compressors.
Apple doesn't have the rights or the ability to give you the source to the compressors of others that they license to use in QuickTime. Good Grief! The whole reason they are not releasing QT6 is because the MPEG-4 people are demanding that content creators pay them a tax to use it, over and above the $2 million Apple will be paying them to license it. Apple is going to bat for its users here, and you have the gall to blame them for not giving you someone else's source code!
> Apple charges (GOUGES) its dwindling developer base.
Oh yeah, right! A whole twenty bucks to get a CD of their developers tools FedExed to your doorstep. Wow, that's highway robbery!
The old Apple was greedy and stupid, sure. Their greed nearly killed them. The new Apple, born in December 1996, is on the whole, wiser and more compassionate. This is the Apple that:
- Based the core of their new OS on open source (and gave back the source, which was not required by the license).
- Slashed the price of their Web Objects from $50,000 to $699.
- Gave away their OS X developer's tools for free download ($20 for CD).
- Went to bat for their users to avoid extra end user charges (for MPEG-4 content creation) for Quick Time Pro users.
- Opened the source of their Darwin Streaming server.
- and a lot more.
> Developers have priciples... and the number one priciple is that they
> HATE being exploited.
No, you just hate having to pay to get anything in life.
> They expect Apple to PAY THEM to read new manuals, not the other
> way around.
>
> They expect Apple to PAY THEM to adapt and ebrace new proprietary
> system technologies, not the other way around.
Actually, that is what your *employer* pays you for, and expects you to do if you want your salary to continue going up. If you are programming as a hobby, it is its own reward.
> They always give long marketing-speak excuses why they wanted 895
> dollars for newton programming manuals
>
> They use excuses such as : default IBM OS/2 programming manuals
> from IBM cost 5000 dollars in March 1987.
>
> Sigh.......
>
> OS/2 is dead, Apple.
So's Newton, so why are you expecting to be able to get programming manuals for it, at any price? Anyway, IBM OS/2 didn't die due to the price of the programming manuals (actually, last I heard, another company was still developing versions of OS/2).
> Offer some video compression source code (pay your consulting
> suppliers if you need to) or shut the hell up.
It's two million dollars (plus content creating costs) just to put MPEG-4 in QuickTime. Do you really want Apple to go broke to give you free source code?
If you want the source that badly, go gripe at the MPEG-4 people.
> I hope Darwin crap dies as well as slow buggy MAc OS X.
> (Mac-O-Sux)
Oh, go argue point with Aqua Mothra! Grrr...
On December 14, 1996, Mothra resurrected an apple tree.
On December 14, 2001, she returned to see its fruit:
OS X, the Apple of Mothra's Aqua eye.
Please add Visual Studio to that. I've tried CodeWarrior, the Borland IDE, KDevelop, Project Builder, vi, emacs and Visual Studio. Visual Studio blows them ALL by a large factor in MY opinion.
(Apple's) Project Builder is getting there, and is extremely good for a version 1.0 (well, 1.1.1) but there is still some work left to do, especially on the debugging side. GDB is nice, but not being able to step into C++ templates classes majorly sucks, for instance, or not being able to set watches in the UI...
One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
There is another issue, though. Apple's market share on the Desktop is enormous, compared to Linux. Now that they are the LARGEST purveyor of UNIX on the desktop, how willing are they to twist Sorenson's arm to get a codec for a fringe desktop platform?
(Yes, I know linux is making some progress on the desktop. But Gnome and KDE and all the Office-type apps out there Blow Goats compared, even to MS Windows. That isn't likely to change anytime soon, given the typical Open SOurce attitude that syas, ''If a pretty smart geek can figure out just how to tweak this stuff to get it to limp along, that's good enough.'' That doesn't cut it in the real world.
Apple has repeatedly expressed a willingness to port QuickTime to other platforms, if the vendor pays for it. Doing a QuickTime port of a quality of the MacOS or Windows product would require on the order of a hundred engineer-years. Remember, the port of QuickTime 3 to Windodws required reimplementing a huge portion of the MacOS toolbox on Windows, tying it into DirectX.
While it would be nice to have a Linux client, it certainly wouldn't make Apple any money. There are a lot of stuff QuickTime needs that I'd rather have the engineers work on (native B-frame support and multichannel audio are two big examples).
Plus, a Linux/UNIX port is a moving target. Framebuffers? X11? Different window managers? RPM? How many different target processors to optimize.
Remmber, QuickTime is on the order of complexity of the Linux kernel.
My video compression blog
Then just surrender the damn codec(s) as ELF libraries or something and let the existing players take care of it. As far as I know, only the Sorensen codec is needed, and it's not like releasing a UNIX version of it will decrease their market share (just the opposite) or suck enormous revenue.
With just the codec as a library, it won't matter how much the target moves since the existing media players will do the Xv/SDL/GGI/VESA/etc. stuff on their own.
And because Linux can use it automatically means FreeBSD and others can use it as well through Linux emulation.
Granted this will never happen since Apple will feel it'd be better to have nothing at all than have anything less than a fully "featured" client.
It's late, and I'm halfway through a bottle of Chianti, so bear with me on this, because this is a little long ...
.2 release to upgrade. I'm loyal, but not naive.)
Even if the licensing terms of the Sorensen codec permitted Apple to release the specs for Quicktime, I'm confident that they wouldn't. I'm pretty sure I understand why. And I agree.
It's all about the brand.
Explanation By Example
Once upon a time, I was a loyal Microsoft user. Dos, Windows 3.1, Windows 95. I had invested time in the system, knew how to get work done using those tools. When a knowledgeable friend suggested that I upgrade my trusty HP Vectra to the newly released Windows NT 4.0, I did so. After the third time the system crashes SO HARD that I had to reinstall the operating system from scratch, I was so irritated at Microsoft that I swore I wouldn't believe their lies again. I went and bought a copy of Red Hat Linux 4.2, and began the long, painful process of self education.
RedHat 4.2 was much, much more difficult for a casual user than MS Windows NT 4.0. But Microsoft's marketing machine was in overdrive at the time, trying to convince the world that Unix was dead, that NT was the future - and, more importantly, that NT was the best computing experience I would get. Microsoft flat out lied to me. The Linux community, on the other hand, never once suggested that I wouldn't have to sweat, curse, and study in order to use their Stone Soup operating system.
I don't mind hard work. I will not tolerate being lied to.
You might be asking at this point, "What the hell does this have to do with the parent article, or even with the subject line of this post, ferchristssake?"
My point is that Microsoft damaged their brand. They misrepresented themselves - they created a significant negative impression in my mind, and I haven't given them a penny since. At the same time, RedHat created a positive impression on me by NOT overselling themselves, by being truthful with me, and I have happily bought a copy of every x.2 release of their software since. (I always wait until the
Apple's single strongest asset is it's brand. As I sit here typing this article on my recently purchased Titanium Powerbook running OS X, I understand the truth of that. I've been a Linux user for the past six years, but never bothered to try any of the BSDs, until Mac OS X. Why? Because Steve Jobs, legendary control freak and perfectionist, has staked his professional reputation on the Apple brand. You know that if you buy a Steve-Jobs-Apple product it will be as good as anything else out there. Apple is all about providing the best computing experience that you can get as a user.
(Don't believe me? Feel the urge to say something in defense of Linux that this point? Think about how many hours it took you to become fluent with linux + the desktop manager of your choice. Spend that same amount of time with Mac OS X and the Aqua interface. After that time, you will find me happy to compare and contrast.)
Proprietary is not neccesarily bad
Apple will probably never Open Source QuickTime, and I don't mind. It's Apple's technology, and they have no social or moral obligation to release it into the wild. But while QuickTime is an Apple technology, when I am presented with multiple formats to select from when viewing multimedia on the web, I always choose QuickTime. It's not out of loyalty. It's because I know, based on experience, that Apple's technology will provide the best user experience.
Happy to spend money
How many of you work on a Windows machine during the day? How often do you use QuickTime and see that annoying "Upgrade to QuickTime Pro now" ad?
Since I began an experiment to use my Apple laptop exclusively for a month (no better teacher than experience) I have spent the $40 for Quicktime 5 Pro. I've also spent a similar amount of money for the OmniWeb browser. Why? Because I was so impressed by the experience those products provided me on this platform that I was happy to give them my money. I don't use Open Source software because I'm cheap. That's a small amount of money to give to people who make a damned fine piece of software.
It's all about the brand, and how seriously the owners take that brand. I don't trust Microsoft, because in my opinion Microsoft doesn't want to have the best damned software out there. Microsoft doesn't care if I have The Best user experience. Microsoft is happy with Good Enough. I trust Apple. Apple DOES want to have the best damned software out there. It's (mostly) not Open Source, and they want to control the experience from the hardware on up, and you have to pay more for that experience. But Apple is very, very good at what they do. Ideology aside, it's worth the money. I'll spend more money with Apple, because I'm so impressed with what i've seen so far. And I'll take a chance on the Next Big Thing that Apple produces. Again, because I've been consistently impressed by what I've seen.
It's all about the brand.