Slashdot Mirror
Windows Media Player 9
captainclever writes "The Register has an interesting article about the posibilities for WMP Clients for Linux.
Would anyone want to use MS WMP in Linux?" See also a news.com story.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Just because so much stuff doesn't come in MPEG. And while we're at it, how about Quicktime?
"Love is a familiar; Love is a devil: there is no evil angel but Love." --William Shakespeare ('Love's Labors Lost')
After reading about the DeCSS case I finally decided to sit down and devote some time to getting DVD playback on my FreeBSD system. Xine seems to work pretty well. I'd prefer seing Xine and mplayer move forward rather than have WMP.
scott
Sounds like a double edged sword to me.. On one hand, we get support for all of Microsoft's formats, in a native client. On the other, it furthers Microsoft's reach with thier DRM technologies.
RaGe
We're all just noise on the wires..
If Microsoft's DRM makes more headway, those of us who enjoy media will be begging for them to make a linux client. Of course, that is not exactly likely.
Recursive (adj.): see 'Recursive'
Microsoft not required.
If I do not absolutely need it to get content because of DRM i won't go with WMP9 on linux. At the moment mplayer works well enough to stop me from trying to get something else to work.
My 2c
# ssh -l neo the_matrix; killall -9 agent_smith
mplayer actually supports more video formats that mediaplayer; I see no reason for me to use anything else. If only mplayer could get a definitive release and become a bit easier to install...
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
I've switched to linux on the desktop some time ago and the only thing annoying me once and a while is the amount of WMP-streams (dutch radio for example) out there. If there's a way to view / listen to them I would consider it. After all I've used proprietary software in the past, I'm still using it sometimes and I don't want to beat RMS in GNU-evangelism ;-)
/(bb|[^b]{2})/
Other open source alternatives have been paving away for multimedia in linux. Such projects like MPlayer and Xine make it easy to play almost any type of format especially with MPlayer's recent addition of Quicktime codecs as well as Windows Media 9 format. In addition to these, Xine and MPlayer also can support dvd playback, so moving from such an established open source software solutions to Windows Media Player just doesn't seem to be a logical move on the Linux platform. Especially since both projects (among many more I am sure, ogle comes to mind) have been putting there hearts into their releases and deserve the focus and attention of the community.
This may enter the Linux platform, some people will boo, some people will cheer, but the bottom line is that the hype will die down as quickly as it did when Real Player came to Unix.
tourettes
It's interesting how so many Linux users complain about how horrible Microsoft products are, yet at the same time embrace things like Wine, Crossover and now potential ports of MS products (and they also like to have Windows-ish desktops, ala GNOME and KDE). I read this article yesterday and it seemed to me that it was more like MS was willing to license the technology they use in WMP9 to third parties to make the software, not that they were directly porting the software themselves.
Nothing good can come of this. I for one don't want to see a Microsoft product on Linux.
<wik>/bin/finger that girl in the back row of machines.
Would anyone want to use MS WMP in Linux?
No.
Next question...
Question again, is why? I have Xine working great. It plays DVDs (LibDVDread,LibDVDNav,LibDVDcss) and I have AC3 Passthrough on my SBLive 5.1 to a DTT3500 DTS Dolby Digital Surround Sound System. It took a bit to get everything compile together but it works great. Got a link on my site for a simple how-to with a screen shot. http://www.linuxlogin.com/linux/emu10k1.php And yes, Xine will play AVIs too, about the only thing I think we are really missing is Quick time.
For playing media there are already many solutions for all intersting platforms, and the only reason for using WMP would be for the DRM stuff...which no-one honestly likes.
I think it's a Good Thing regardless of whether people use WMP simply because it demonstrates MSFT's acceptance of a widening world where they are currently looked down on.
I use Intervideo's stuff mostly and only use alternatives eitehr by accidental association or when I'm forced into it.
Personally, I'd avoid anything that restricted my use of media I own. I don't care who produces it.
...it's the fact that these are controlled standards. The internet is a free place, and standards should be as free as possible. MS may be releasing WMP 9 such that we'll see a client on Linux, but that doesn't mean that this is a good thing.
What we'll see is a proliferation of WMP DRM through our systems, as well as Real and QuickTime. What we really need is a single open standard that can be played back on anything without proprietary software. If it's secure, so much the better for the content creators - but I don't see why they can't settle for a simple copyright at the end, like they do for their web pages.
Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
School hasn't started yet in most of North America -- the first-post trolls are having a planning session and a smoke.
If I listen to MP3's, there's the Fraunhofer patent regime to deal with.
And if I go with the totally free Ogg, there's the danger of destroying my hearing.
I guess in the end I have to go with Ogg. Perhaps someone knowledgable will submit some code to them that fixes the fourier compression algorithms in their codec so that it doesn't cause these aural damage problems. That's one of the problems of having musicians and other non-trained programmers creating your software.
Mplayer works just fine, without Microsoft ... http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
If you'd actually get your lazy ass up and search for a player. you'd find mplayer, which can already play microsoft streaming video and just about every other format under the sun.
Idiot.
I get the chance to make amendments to Windows media player code......Juicy!!!!
If what is being reported is indeed true then this is rather telling about Microsoft and how they see things playing out in the future. *If* they thought that they could keep %95+ market share on the desktop and achieve high penetration on the CE/PocketPC side of things they could continue to snub anything that wasn't their own. I assume they've come to the conclusion that this set of circumstances will not come to pass. Maybe when shopping around the technology potential clients told them they weren't interested if it was locked into to MS only clients.
But I'm flying with GStreamer atm and couldnt be happier. Also Xine and MPlayer are top quality too. Especially when used on conjunction with interfaces like Totem, I really couldnt ask for much more! DVD playback is also coming on strong!
Off the top of my head I cant think of anything (apart from DRM) that WMPlayer can do that any of the above can't do anyway? [conspiracy]Maybe that's the point.. this is a cunning plan to get DRM onto Linux :)[/conspiracy] Anyway, by the time it's available the other Linux media players will have either caught up or be better I expect.
2003 will be the year for linux \o/
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
"Would anyone want to use MS WMP in Linux?"
Yes.
Lot's of us don't use Linux because it is a freaking nightmare to use it effectivly as a nice GUI desktop. Lot's of other folks will say how much they like it and use it. Do me a favor and tally all thos who do. Compare it with those who do not.
Linux is fine and dandy. I used it for years before giving up on it.
One day if the entire user community decides to get together and adopt one way of doing things and it becomes a uniform standard and united front then Linux will no doubt find glory.
Until then, who knows.
Why would Linux users want to use WMP when smart windows users won't even get near it. Sorry, I value my processor cycles too much.
PDF has been pretty well accepted since Adobe has been good at creating readers for all (reasonable) platforms. If WMP becomes the same thing, I wouldn't mind TOO much, except for the fact that I would have to run a hardened kernel because of MS security track record.
Stop the brainwash
I wouldn't be very interested in media player. I wouldn't want the current license and DRM crap on my linux box. And as far as security goes, it's a rootkit that's waiting to happen.
$G
-- $G
Users don't want to have to learn the same thing eight or nine times. Windows doesn't do a whole lot that is fantastic, IMHO, but their interface offers the best compromise between range of operation and ease of use. On Linux, we've tilted the dial towards range of operation (well, except for Quicktime video...), but there's still the issues of compatibility and ease of use that have been largely disregarded.
The average user has an index of approximately 27 different motions that can be easily recalled. People generally start at the bottom of a surface such as the page of a book or the screen on their computer when they first look at it, but if they're going to be with it a while they begin looking at the top (when they turn the page or open an application). This is the type of research that you can see in Windows -- Start bar on bottom, menu options on top of the application.
So maybe duplication isn't such a bad thing... after all, even they just took the best parts from the innovators of the GUI (Apple) and improved on the rest.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Hey it is wishful thinking that WMP for Linux would solve many of your media playing wishes. However, from my experience useing WMP (current) for Mac OS X (10.2) not all media is playable. Nor does the WMP work nicely with browsers other than IE.
In one word MS doesn't fully support WMP on any platform other than Windows. I must admit some of the problems are due to third party hack up solutions. (read tuning in to your fav air wave station over the internet) Maybe MS would provide some plug-in architecture to improve its media playing abilities.
Of course they would need something like DeCSS.. hmmm
Perhaps they will release a commerical product that contains it's own "native" support for DVD decoding.
Then no honest and legally minded citizen would have to use "illegal" software to watch DVDs. Hmmmmmmm
http://www.hawknest.com/
And who can forget folks, who has Microsoft managed to NOT screw. There are so many ways they can twist this dagger once it's in our back I need to see a chiropractor just thinking about it,
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
I won't need to download and install this piece of crap. It's probably another M$ spyware ploy. But I'm OK. Ninnle Linux does everything I need!
If someone uses a nasty non-standard format then you don't want there content.
No DRM Enabled player makes boycotting easy.
OGG Yes, MP3 yes MPEG yes, non-standard formats no, it doesn't matter how good your format is, I wont use it unless you release it to a standards body.
What ever happened to FIF &co.... good formats, yep, standards based, nope.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I'll stick to MPlayer. At least it doesn't send off your download statistics and crap. Plus, it already supports beta WM9 codecs anyways.
Yep, NIMBY. Not In My Back Yard. The whole reason I use Linux at all is to get away from The Machine. I don't want M$ branded crap bundled in with the next distro I pick up.
I'm gonna venture a guess here, and I'll probably get modded down to the 10th level of hell for it, but here goes. My guess is that, since M$ knows it can't directly attack Linux and the GPL, it figures it'll go along with it, then tear it apart from within. Get inside the game, then start picking it apart. Since they'll more than likely want the source of their apps closed, we won't really know what's going on with it while it's running.
If the current Media Player is any suggestion, it won't be good. Media Player theives all file associations, making you go back in and change them back to the way you had them before you installed it. And who knows to what extent this DRM crap will get to. Would they go so far as to disable anything they don't find "trustworthy" in the Palladium model? Knocking out XMMS, MPTV, and locating and disabling the open OGG format's plugins?
The real problem lies in the obvious. Noone but M$ knows. And you know what they say, Knowledge is Power. Right now, M$ is holding alot (but not all) of the cards. Honsestly, if this gets any worse, I'm more than willing to move outside of the country I love, just to get away from Micro$oft. Extreme, yes. But I enjoy my personal rights and freedoms too much to have them yanked away by the likes of M$, the RIAA and the MPAA...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
One reason to use WMP9 is quality. WMA and WMV are better than MP3 and MPEG4.
Windows Media support would be nice. :) .wmv to Linux, even in closed library format.
A lot can be said about closed formats but wmv sure streams nicely.
I would welcome
All most popular formats are supported by MPlayer and other softwares, QuickTime included. We should discourage the use, rather than adapt to, other proprietary and sometimes untrustworthy formats.
Listen this might be good. If WMP comes to linux then perhaps IE might follow and then Outlook Express. Think it is crazy? All the apps mentioned have Solaris versions so why not?
:->
Sure, I won't use them. But the corporate folks will love it.
Also, a lot of folks scream about how hard it is to set up some of the latest greatest video/audio apps but with apt and apt for rpm I have had an easy time of it. The only problem is that when you want the newest latest greatest features like Sorennson support in mplayer.
I am just waiting for a complete quicktime Sorrenson solution. Either it needs work or my setup is weird because it did not work for me. It has not been out that long so no worries. I will probably get a version working of this early code two days before the apt for rpm folks put rpms for it on freshrpms.
Anyway, I would not use WMP or Outlook Express in Linux but there are plenty of corporate adopters that would. Not only that, I have to admit I would use IE every day in Linux, for about five minutes. Why? The corporate timesheet app online works only on IE.
ACK
In general, DRM issues aside on this question, I would encourage Microsoft to be a player in the Linux software space. However, they will have to unlearn so many of their common mistakes before their products will be accepted. To wit, spying on end-user usage patterns, enforcing DRM, and charging for software.
As Linux users, we could benefit from having a major software manufacturer creating standardized applications. However, Micro$oft would likely be hurting their OS business, so I wouldn't expect any major apps like Office to be forthcoming.
The preceding comment has been reviewed and declared to be compliant with HIPPA Phase II regulations.
why not...
:)
even OSI certified one would pass my restrictions
Windows Media Player 9 could quite possibly be the most critically evaluated piece of software every to hit linux. In that case it will be a hit for sure, just as long as it does what it is supposed to.
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
Why would i want to use big and bloated WMP under Linux, when i've got MPlayer? (i've noticed two other posts with the URL to their site, so i'm not posting it). The recently released RC2 fixes a lot of bugs that caused MPlayer to just shut down by itself after playing a few movies. Now i could play any number of movies of any type, and things are just great. With its support for win32 codecs, who needs WMP anyway? Oh, and the MPlayer binary i compiled weighs in at a mere 2.8 Mb, all necessary codecs built-in; beat that, WMP.
We don't want to have any M$ Spyware on our computers. Who is the ignorant here?? Don't you people know that Windows Mediaplayer sends information to M$ servers about what media a particular person has watched??? There was a story about it on Slashdot a while back for Christ's sake!
Maybe because it's a nasty, semi-legal hack using MS/Apple binaries.
You forgot to add "that works extremely well". I think it's better than WMP. It's much much much more stable (in my experience, can't speak for everyone) and supports about as many formats (more?).
I will not install proprietary binaries on my computer.
Then no soup for you!
So I assume you're talking about the codecs, anyway. Well guess what, if you don't like the fact that mplayer uses binary non-opensource codecs, then write your own. mplayer itself is opensource and they don't need to re-write every fucking codec themselves. Why don't you volunteer your support?
And if your'e not talking about the codecs, then check this (from the mplayer website): MPlayer is GPL now. In the past it contained non-GPL code from the OpenDivX project, which did not allow binary redistribution. This has been removed.
Anyway, I hope you're not thinking that MS would release WMP opensource, cause... umm...
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
MPlayer (www.mplayerhq.hu) is the movieplayer of choice for FreeBSD & Linux! Let's give it our 100% support!
No matter how easy this was to install, I would not put it on my system. These formats aren't even all that great compared to other ones with fewer strings attached. I wouldn't even install WMP9 on my windows.
I think this move is nothing more than an attack on Quicktime and DivX.
-Derick
I wonder if Microsoft is putting its toe in the water here to see if MS applications on Linux would sell. Loosening up the licensing will attract an ISV to write a commercial WMP for Linux. If things work out well, MS can always aquire/squash the ISV and come out with "MS Bundle for Linux". If the product doesn't sell, there is little risk to MS since company holding the WMP license might not be in business anymore, rendering all licenses void.
I already use WMP on top of crossover wine, it'd be nice to have a native port. ...either that or an OSS way of reading ALL of the codecs it supports. Just when you think you've got 'em all covered someone posts an audio or video file that I can't access any other way.
I'm a windows user, and even I don't want to use MS Media Player 9. I'm staying at version 6 before code bloat and persistant default ANNOYING 'skins' made their appearance.
WMA is a crappy format with horrible DRM in it, if no one uses it, it won't catch on... pure and simple.
The only legs that Linux has to stand on is technological quality and price. It just so happens that Windows media has the same two advantages of MPEG-4. The licensing is about half the price the sound quality is the best I have ever heard hands down, and the compression is amazing. Before you go spouting off crap about standards compliance, just remember that Windows is as much of a standard as MPEG.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
I hate to comment when I agree with every other thing you said especially
"Personally, I'd avoid anything that restricted my use of media I own. I don't care who produces it."
But you are horridly mistaken when you say:
"I think it's a Good Thing regardless of whether people use WMP simply because it demonstrates MSFT's acceptance of a widening world where they are currently looked down on."
Let's get his clear: Microsoft hates you and hates anything that gives you liberty from them, i.e. Free Software. Any supposed embracement of Linux would only be a well-placed strategy to extend their control into other domains.
It's weird and kind of funny...
.ASF/.WMV/QT streaming support ?
People "wonder" why they would want to use a Microsoft-made video player and claim that MPlayer and Xine are the best thing since sliced bread. The truth is, they are not. They are just slowly becoming "OK" in my book, but nothing exceptional.
Where are the good GUIs for the video players (yes, GUIs, not skins) ?
Where is search-that-does-not-suck support for Real Media ?
Where is high quality Real Media playback ?
Where is high quality Quicktime playback ?
Where is
The list can go on and on...
And no, don't give me the standard "but they use evil proprietary codecs we have to re-engineer" crap, because Joe Average is not going to care. Joe Average wants stuff that "just works". And MPlayer and Xine, while making good progress, still don't.
I think there is one reason why Microsoft might make it possible to have an Open Source client program that can read .WMA, .WMV and .ASX files--it will put Real Networks and Apple at a serious competitive disadvantage.
.NET server--in one fell swoop the Sun-led Liberty Alliance project has been kiboshed because Windows clients and Linux clients can use more or less the same .NET services.
It's just like the fact that Microsoft has no qualms about Ximian's Mono project to create the Open Source equivalent of a
My guess is that this announcement isn't aimed at all for Linux general desktop users, but is intended for manufacturers who are using Linux on an embedded system. If I were Microsoft, I would be looking to release a proprietary licensed, user-mode library containing core WM9 functionality. Vendors can then link that library, under Microsoft licensing terms, to their own applications and bundle DRM enabled applications 'TiVo etc' into their Linux embedded systems. That doesn't violate any GPL/LGPL licensing so long as the vendor is careful about what other code they link against when producing their binaries for distribution. GPL base code already present on the Linux OS, and LGPL only are acceptable per terms of the GNU licenses. Linking any such WM9 DRM library with for example MPlayer would not be within the GPL license.
Would anyone want to use MS WMP in Linux?
I certainly would not.
Years ago, I knew people who wanted very badly for Microsoft to release an IE for Linux, because at the time we had no decent browsers. At the time, even I considered IE to be superior.
But, on my Linux boxes, I gave it time, and sure enough we have several better-than-IE browsers (Mozilla, Konqueror, Opera, etc).
The same can be said about MS Office. We now have a few alternatives (though I *hate* that Open/StarOffice tries to mimic MS Office down to the last detail...)
Likewise, MPlayer for Linux is coming along quite nicely. Unlike WMP on my Windows box, MPlayer consistantly plays 98% of the video files I run across, where WMP likes to suddenly stop working for various reasons, or start refusing to play certain types of files (currently Divx 4 won't play, and MP3 audio is severely clipped).
Plus, I don't consider WMP to be a one-stop end-all solution even on Windows. For QuickTime I have to use Apple's player. Many Divx files need to be played in a Divx-specific application (I know WMP is *supposed* to work with various CODECS but in practice it gives meaningless error messages).
MPlayer on Linux, OTOH, is pretty good about playing the majority of file formats I wind up with. This is why my "media box" runs Linux/MPlayer (with no X; just using the vesa output gives nice results). At the moment, QuickTime with "compressed headers" won't play. All other files I have (300+ video files, various sources) play back nicely.
I personally don't want Microsoft invading my non-MS systems. I use Windows a lot, sure, but the oddities in IE/WMP/Office/etc are part of the reason I use Linux on other systems - the systems where I won't put up with odd, random behavior from software, like my media box.
And I won't even get started on the idea of having DRM on my Linux boxes...
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
"Would anyone want to use MS WMP in Linux?"
Scenario #1 in my mind:
Linux grows and grows -especially on the desktop- and this WMP-support allows it to be more acceptable to the mainstream computing public as now they have another "obstacle" taken out of their way.
(I see many sites switching to WMP-only or mixed WMP/RealMedia or mixed WMP/QuickTime)
Scenario #2:
Because WMP becomes that much more less of a stubling block "on the desktop" it becomes more acceptable for websites to carry WMP.
(Do they ever get angry mail from users not being able to access WMPs?)
Thus paving they way for a WMP (and intrusive DRM)-takeover of yet more media. In time trickling down to (portable)hardware (e.g. see today's VIA anouncement about their 3 new CODEC-chips).
Hmmmm... I'm leaning more towards "curse" for now.
... and just when everyone and their dog has switched - the cock will probably not crow today until you have all denied three times to ever start using WMP - then Microsoft will suddenly dump WMP support for Linux - or even better, WMP will cost money, as "the free days are over and Linux users should know that software costs money". Embrace and extend this is called. Been there, done that.
my other sig is a 500 page novel
First, the cons:
Now, the pros:
- Built in DSP enhancements that actually sound decent. No downloading trialware DSP enhancers.
- Minimize to Quick Launch. When you minimize it, instead of getting just a button on the taskbar you get a mini control panel. Slick.
- Song rating. You can rate each song (1 to 5 stars) as it plays and and eventually get 'Top 10' lists or whatever.
- Built-in playlists. You can select "Songs I listen to at night", "Songs I haven't heard lately.", "4 and 5 star songs", etc.
- Automatic ID3 tag updating
At this point, my main grudge against WMP9 is that it won't rip to MP3 or Vorbis. Of course, I use CDEx for that anyway, so it doesn't really matter. I do know that I've tried WinAmp 3 on two seperate occasions and as far as I'm concerned WMP9 blows it away. So yes, I would be interested in a Linux version.Having a company, especially one as large as MS developing software for Linux has to be a good thing......
So long as they don't try to 'impose' their crippled formats on you.
'You don't like MS, don't install the software and there is no harm done.' I'd rather protect the foolish by not having MS write the software in the firstplace. You can't shoot yourself in the foot if you don't have a gun.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Why exactly would I want a proprietary, closed-source spyware application when I have free software mplayer which plays everything from .mp3 to quicktime and can double not only as a DVD player but also as an encoder ?
That's like running IE when you can run Mozilla, isn't it?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
...works markedly better than the slightly older one that came with SuSE 8.1. It plays divx files and VCDs at least as well as WMP on Windows 98 and better than WMP on NT.
MEK
Credo quia impossibilis -- Tertullian
... are we that desperate for "world domination" that we want WMP ported to linux? If you care so much about Microsoft applications, why bother switching to linux in the first place? At least for me, the whole point behind using linux is the freedom that comes with the GPL/BSD licenses and that warm, friendly atmosphere between developers and users in the mailing lists. From that viewpoint, whatever Microsoft-related is just irrelevant.
"Would anyone want to use MS WMP in Linux?" Of course they would! - Double click and you have an instant screensaver for half an hour or so while it redraws the screen, its wonderfully attractive you know, in a sort-of high-tech paint-drying way.
Maybe MS wants to get a better idea of how many people are using linux on the desktop. With this kind of thing sending back your hardware info to MS, it could see what kind of system you're running, i.e. straight linux, dual boot, etc.
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
I don't use WMP under Windows - why would I want it cluttering up my linux box? I suspect the sort of people that actually like MS office would jump at the chance to run WMP under linux. I don't trust my audio and video files to a company which can't make a decent web browser, email client, word processor, or presentation program, and actively attacks those who can.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I've used everything from word95 to word2000, and it wasn't until OpenOffice came along that I abandoned WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
You don't want to play media with DRM in it, right? Stop playing DVDs then. And don't install any media players that are capable of playing DVDs.
An interesting thought occurrs: if Microsoft got out of the business of pushing their Operating System (not necessarily stopping production, just playing nice), and got more into the applications-development side of things, what would we then think about Microsoft?
;p
For example, they release Linux, Solaris and *BSD versions of Office, WMP, IE, and other software, all fully functional and roughly equal to (say) the Mac versions. Likewise, they no longer resort to monopolistic tactics to push their OS monopoly, realizing that they can do better selling applications, and not worrying about which OS you use. Perhaps they even focus more on security in their software products (ignoring the OS for now).
Would most of us reconsider how we think of Microsoft? If they slowly did away with the things we tend to hate the most, and focused on quality software, would they then be just another vendor (albeit extremely huge)?
I posted earlier answering "Not me" on the WMP issue, but it really isn't too late for Microsoft to wisen up. I believe they make more money from Office sales than OS sales, but the OS monopoly helped with that. Perhaps they realize they are losing/will lose the OS monopoly, and need to focus on quality cross-platform applications to stay in business. Maybe the free-as-in-beer WMP is a first step toward this, or a test project, or...
Or maybe I didn't get enough sleep and am still dreaming... Just random thoughts spewing out here. Resume normal discussion at this time
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
MPlayer can also convert Windows Media/Quicktime/RealMedia formats to open formats!!!
From what I see this is supposed to be about M$ licensing their Windows Media Player software, etc. Why am I seeing a lot of posts about Gun control in the UK? Or is this supposed to give me an idea of what is thought of BG in the UK?
'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'
Also, who knows if this will be a piece of crap or if they will keep providing upgrades....
Eat at Joe's.
Not me; I don't even want to use media players on MS Windows. A good compiler is more entertaining than anything coming out of the entertainment industry.
If I want to take a break from creating my own intellectual property to passively experience someone else's, there's a TV set and audio equipment in the other room.
What i would like to see is WMP support in existing movie players through a plug in. This would keep MS infections more safely contained, yet allow existing software to play the content.
Some might complain that this will make DRM more attractive to distributors because then they will have a method of DRM (theoretically) available on all platforms. I do not believe this is true. As has been shown with music CDs, the companies are willing to make user equipment obsolete if they feel they need to do so in the name of copy protection.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Hmmm... so I can now view my porn *without* rebooting??
We've got MPlayer, after all.
Besides, when I installed WiMP 9, it broke some of my codecs, so I can't play some DVD-compliant MPG files I was arranging for an upcoming DVD burn. Since I can't even uninstall WiMP 9, I find that very tacky, indeed, because now I need to reinstall the OS on that machine.
(but wait! I can't, yet!)
Get off my launchpad!
The engineer definition of standard is different from the business/joe user idea of standard. To an engineer, a standard specifies everything that is needed to implement the widget in question. To business/joe user, standard just means "what everybody uses". Well, 12 years ago the standard in office documents by that definition was WordPerfect. Reading those documents could be difficult since there wasn't an engineer's standard to go along with the vernacular standard. It can be reverse engineered but the devil is in the details. Anything can happen and it is possible that Office could become what WordPerfect is today. Since there is no engineer's standard for Office, that data will decay faster than newsprint in a compost heap.
To us, it just isn't a standard unless we can implement it. The fact that enough clueless people use it to make it a defacto standard of sorts is absolutely of no help when trying to archive data or communicate with someone.
Needless to say, we also don't like it when someone takes an engineer's standard like an RFC and Embrace 'n' Extends it into a hairball non-engineer's standard. Defacto standards shift like quicksand. There is a reason why say weights and measures are defined precisely and reproducibly. You can never tell when you may implement them on your own and same applies to data interchange and communication.
is not whether you will use WM9, but whether or not the content providers use will it? And that answer, unfortunately, is yes, the content providers will be swayed by the monopoly and use the largest installed base media player. In fact, they already are.
Just to see where these things were going, last weekend I watched a few movies from movielink and cinema(something) and they had a 'few' requirements:
1. Windows
2. Either Real or WM
Regardless if we choose to use either of those, the content providers definitely will not, so we'll all be relegated to watching Quicktime trailers and definitely not DRM stuff, which both Movielink and the Cinema(something) site had.
Personally, I'd much rather log onto a site and watch a movie that way instead of going to the video store. And either of the sites will let you download the movie and watch it. I think they both last for 24hrs.
One thing about the 'service' tho that I thought sucked was that I paid $10 for a month of 'premium' access, but all the new movies were 'pay-per-view' which has an additional $3.95. That was pretty inconvenient. Actually kinda pissed me off. In that case, I'm better off going to the video store and freeing up my bandwidth.
Anyway, back to the players; remember they're just the client and are the keys to the really bigger things: the content on the back end. Unfortunately, 95% of the computing world runs Windoze and their path of least resistance, monopoly pushed apps. These are always gonna be the people that the content providers will cater to. So I don't know what there is to do about that since it won't matter to the providers one bit if the Linux folks can't watch their movies.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the Real Helix stuff or even Quicktime pick up some steam. Apple has stated that they think that DRM as it exists for content now is not the way to go. So maybe they can use our support too.
One other note, the only way I see the content providers backing away from WM9 is if it is found as insecure as IE. This could persuade them to go for something else. But then again, once you have a big catalog of digital flix that you have to re-encode for another platform, that decision to just ship, even in the wake of security concerns, seems highly unlikely. Or maybe not..
Personally i think that it would be a good thing if wmp for linux would be released...chances are that the performance would surpass that of mplayer when it comes to the M$ formats.
I refuse to run any DRM emable software, or hardware on my machine... No one will monitor my digital rights farther than software licencing...
As far as WMP is concerned, it is a big piece of bloatware... that monitors your listening habits and broadcasts them.
However, i'm all for OGG or other open ended file formats...
just support for the format in say another media player? then there wouldn't need to be a whole new client for it.
I write code.
All this trouble so the /. crowd can watch as many of the downloaded porn vids as possible.
Come on, you know it's true.
I say we screw all this WMP and MOV crap. point wget at a porn index site, tell it to only get mmpeg, jpeg and html files and let it run while you're on vacation.
When you come back, you'll have a nice, fat local directory of porn, all playable under Linux.
That, or set up a dual boot so you can get into Windows and batch convert your "protected" files to mpeg.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
While we are giving Microsoft a foothold in the Linux, why don't we give Saddam a nuke?
-ted
If Microsoft made a windows media player for linux, I'd use it in a heartbeat. When I was using linux of course. It would be more stable, easier to install, and easier to use than any of the current linux equivalents. Sure it might not be as powerful, but its easy. I still really want winamp for linux. I can't stand playing mp3s in wmp. But for video it's ok. As far as I'm concerned any commercial software for linux is a good thing, even if it is MS.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
In order for a lot of the formats to work you need closed source windows .dlls so...
Microsoft mostly not required.
As a longtime Mac user I can say - don't be fooled. MS products for the Mac never live up to their Windows versions (recent versions of Office excepted). They're usually crippled and play second fiddle to the Windows version.
The only thing they're good for is incentivizing sites to use MS-only media or allow access to MS-only products.
I'll pass. Give me open standards, thank you
bc
DRM or not, any application has to talk to the hardware at some level. Unless microsoft ship binary only sound/video drivers that can't be hacked to write video/audio data out through network or unix domain sockets, or /proc devices, then anyone can access protected content digitally, before it gets to the output device.
We already know that the SB Audigy turns off it's digital outputs when playing DRM-enabled content under windows. I doubt very much that open source drivers would bother to implement such a feature.
If Microsoft do ship binary only sound/video drivers, they won't work for long, as the kernel interfaces will probably change, again. Besides, there are just too many cards out there. By careful manipulation of the VM subsystem, all driver I/O can be redirected in interesting ways anyway.
Question is then, does this make the linux kernel a 'circumvention device' in the context of the DMCA? Perhaps this is the goal?
No.
DISCLAIMER:
I don't believe what I write, and neither should you.
Here is the list of codecs their website has listed:
# The most important video codecs: MPEG1 (VCD) and MPEG2 (SVCD/DVD/DVB) video
# MPEG4, DivX
# Windows Media Video v7 (WMV1), v8 (WMV2) and v9 (WMV3) used in
# RealVideo 1.0, 2.0 (G2), 3.0 (RP8), 4.0 (RP9)
# Sorenson v1/v3 (SVQ1/SVQ3), Cinepak, RPZA and other common QuickTime codecs
# Intel Indeo codecs (3.x,4.1,5.0)
# VIVO v1, v2
# MJPEG variants, HuffYUV, ZLIB/MSZH, ASV2 and other capture/hardware formats
# FLI, RoQ and other old/rare animation formats
# The most important audio codecs: MPEG layer 1, 2 and 3 (MP3) audio
# AC3/A52 (dolby digital) audio (software or SP/DIF)
# WMA (DivX Audio) v1, v2 (native codec)
# WMA 9 (WMAv3), Voxware audio, ACELP.net etc (using x86 DLLs)
# RealAudio: COOK, SIPRO, ATRAC3, DNET (using RP's plugins)
# QuickTime: Qclp, Q-Design QDMC/QDM2, MACE 3/6 (using QT's DLLs)
# Ogg Vorbis audio codec
# VIVO audio (g723, Vivo Siren) using x86 DLL
# alaw/ulaw, (ms)gsm, pcm, *adpcm and other simple old audio formats
Now...why would you want to run WMP9 when it doesn't support any where near that many codecs? Oh...you want more you say? What about these output options:
# General: x11:X11 with SHM extension
# xv:X11 using overlays with the Xvideo extension (hardware YUV & scaling)
# gl:OpenGL renderer
# gl2:Alternative OpenGL renderer (with multiple textures)
# dga:X11 DGA extension (both v1.0 and v2.0)
# fbdev:Output to general framebuffers
# svga:Output to SVGAlib
# sdl:SDL >= v1.1.7 driver (supports software scaling, and versions >=1.1.8 even support Xvideo, thus hardware rendering)
# ggi:similar to SDL
# aalib:Textmode rendering
# vesa:display through the VESA BIOS (also needed for Radeon TV-out)
# directfb:DirectFB support
# Card specific: vidix:VIDeo Interface for *niX
# xvidix:VIDIX in X window
# mga:Matrox G200/G400 hardware YUV overlay via the mga_vid device
# xmga:Matrox G200/G400 overlay (mga_vid) in X11 window (Xv emulation on X 3.3.x !)
# syncfb:Matrox G400 YUV support on framebuffer (not tested, maybe broken)
# 3dfx:Voodoo 3/Banshee hardware YUV support (/dev/3dfx) (not yet tested, maybe broken)
# tdfxfb:Voodoo 3/Banshee hardware YUV support on tdfx framebuffer (works!)
# Special: png:PNG files output (use -z switch to set compression)
# jpeg:JPEG files output
# gif89a:Animated GIF files output
# yuv4mpeg:yuv4mpeg output for mjpegtools
# pgm:PGM files output (for testing purposes)
# md5:MD5sum output (for mpeg conformance tests)
# null:Null output (for speed tests/benchmarking)
I love Mplayer...it loves you...why use something from MS when you don't have to?
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
I disagree with people why say that Windows Media should always be avoided. It's there, and people turning their backs to it are fools. The format is just the technicality, the content itself is what make the whole thing worthwile (or not).
Many VODs are available solely in windows media format at the company I work for, and I'm actually glad that a browser interface with integrated media of some sort produce good results for the user experience.
Their old efforts at audio/video coding sucked ... so that held them back. But their present codecs are state of the art ... and will gain market dominance since the rest of the industry plodding along with design by committee and waiting for IP problems to be sorted out.
... because they are technologically superior to anything else on the market.
M$ can set their own standards, and this time they will succeed
Better not use it...Why?
Because of MSFT's history of changing protocols etc. This could be an attempt at "lock in".
StarTux
... that may be the reason why rumours are saying so :o)
...
;-)
Anyway, MPEG standard streams and DIVX stuffs are al ready widelly available as a valid format !
Some interresting stuff are beeing done arroung SMIL and SVG
But at this time MS got a trouble with their WMP as they've just failed to force people to migrate to their proprietary stuffs
No fullscreen problems for me either -- and installation of the new RPMs was trouble free on SuSE 8.1 (I got prompted to install the SuSE disc containing termcap as a prerequisite).
MEK
Credo quia impossibilis -- Tertullian
Last time i checked, you need to devote some time into getting DVD playback in windows too. After all, a computer is not a dvd-player, though it can play dvds with the proper hardware and software.
Yeah, I got really surprised. OMG, I have to _work_ to get anything done!???
we come in peace / shoot to kill
I started using Linux to escape obtrusive and bloated applications with restrictive licenses. Anyways, it's tough to view the best pr0n when you have to keep updating your Windows Media PLayer codecs - it's hard enough using mplayer now (we should all thank the mplayer team for giving us the best cli media player around).
The authors have made speculations about MS creating WMP for Linux et al, but I don't believe it myself. All that MS is really offering is licensing of the technology (codecs?). This is probably required by the anti-trust settlement, to provide open, non-discriminatory licensing for their data formats.
Question: Since most distros now include either Mplayer or Xine, which can play MS media files, will this give MS incentive to go after distros to charge licensing for the software sales?
"then you don't want there content."
:)
Your message makes no sense.
then you don't want here content.
There. That's better.
Well at least download it and check it out. I dont care for microsoft but there are pleanty of people who dont want to switch to Linux just because they will be missing their famulair application (It dosent matter if mplayer runs better) they want applications that they know how to use without looking stupid while learning a new system. It is hard for some people to give up what they are use to and switch to a different system. So having media player there at least gives them one less application that they will have to relearn.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
We just had a vendor in here the other day installing a system a client wants us to use for sharing/previewing TV spots. They are switching their preferred formats to WM9 and MPEG2. MPEG2 is supported because of its use as a broadcast format.
The engineer who did the equipment installation said that WM9 is preferred because of its extremely high quality at low bitrates and the bonus of ubiquitous support in Windows environments.
While they still support (and will support) Quicktime, it is no longer their preferred format.
I thought this was rather surprising, as I was unaware of "pro" tools for WM9 encoding or the availability of the codecs out outside of a Windows environment. But clearly for this application they felt that it was at the very least a superior codec.
This is precisely the reasib I don't have Windows installed at home. I gave up on windows after spending quite some time to get everything working and being unable to. It then took me half the time to get it all going in Linux.
The DVD could play back, but no sound. In fact no sound, period.
The time I spent in Linux was far mor rewarding, becuase rather than spending time trying to figure out what little thing was stopping the "magic" of Microsoft from working, I instead spent the time getting little bits to work. One feels like an achievement the other a time sap.
Microsoft, at its discretion, shall install Windows License Management for Linux a.k.a. WLML. We shall have full root access to your computer. We own everything you have on it. Have a nice day, and enjoy playing your DRM .wmv files!
I like mplayer the way it is, I can compile it for each system I have to get the best performance out of that system. You cant always do that with a precompiled binary.
So if Microsoft ultimately wins a major share of the market, then using a Microsoft DRM client may be necessary in order to buy music.
The solution to that problem is already being effectively implemented in the Computer Programs area: generate a vast industri, that doesn't pay taxes or royalties, providing people with unprotected material.
Restrict people enough, and they will turn rebel!
SLOGEN [ http://ungdomshus.nu : Sebastian cover music]
assuming this is talking about web browser plugins?
because i can play anything i want to with mplayer (and im sure with xine and whatnot).
i think ill wait for tarkin (hopefully it will have web browser support), otherwise will have to scrumage for those direct links...
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
Whats the reason. Divx is more then enough!
"...technology broadly available so that it will be even more ubiquitously used than today. Poole said"
The definition of "ubiquitous" is to "be everywhere", how the hell can you be "more everywhere". Just once I wish reporters would ask these guys to clarify such an obviously stupid statement.
"So Mr. Poole, what your saying is that while WMP DRM is everywhere, you want it to be 'more everywhere'? Do I have that right?"
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
Heh, as if I had to ask that question. We all know Slashdot Patriots can't read.
It's funny how so many people in here are freaking that Windows Media Player 9.0 might make it's way onto Linux. Where is that stated in the Register article? They state that the Windows Media 9.0 licensing will be cheaper and more open to alternate platforms. What does this mean? It means that maybe MPlayer can play WMAs, not that you'll have to run Windows Media Player 9.0. It also means that said codecs will likely be closed source given royalty requirements. Don't like that? Go back to OGG and forget that MPEG exists.
It's funny that the supposedly technical elite are so technically inept.
Even on Win9x, why would anyone want to use WMP with WinAmp and FreeAmp available? WinAmp is a great player app, and I'd rather have that on Linux than WMP. The only thing that's really important is the codec. So long as the player can play the codec, its good: and WinAmp can play almost every codec.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
This COULD be Microsoft finally publicly acknowledging that Linux is a competing platform. But I would doubt it. I sense two threats here:
1. This is a trojan horse in the truest sense of the word. To get Microsoft positioned to hold a portion of the distribs for ransom, or force some kind of proprietary/non-proprietary distrib fork that would fragment the mainstream adoption of Linux.
2. The positive attention to Linux may be too much and too soon. Especially if the push is to the "desktop". The general public is not ready for Linux. Hell, they aren't even ready for Windows in most cases. The real issue is getting OEM installations of Linux (SuSE, RedHat, doesn't matter... just make sure it's well configured and that all the hardware works out of the box) Also, include caveats about what this box WILL work with and what it won't: Software and hardware compatibility.
I mentioned in one of my earlier columns (for those that keep up with the T4D Chronicle) a while back that if "Joe Average" out there keeps hearing and reading about Linux on the mainstream press without knowledge of what Linux REALLY is, they may be in for disappointment.
The mainstream press just touts "Linux" but there is no explanation of the finer points. The public should be made aware that most distribs are very different and that they themselves are NOT Linux. They are built on top of Linux. The problem is that "Joe Average" doesn't care. He only wants to know: "Can I get AOL on it? Can I play the latest and greates games on it? Can I download pr0n on it? Can I do "work" on it (Office applications, etc... You know, the pointless stuff.)
?
In a lot of ways the distribs are the software equivalent of the PC. A consistent lower layer; the kernel. The essential "expansion cards"; libraries, base authentication, shell. And finally the optional "expansion cards"; XFree86, Gnome, KDE, etc... This is a great oversimplification, but it suffices for this discussion. Linux is to software as beige boxes are to hardware. That's why so many of us "geeks" love it.
RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake and other distrib vendors are the software parallel to Alienware or Explorer Micro. Here is where ther is a problem. "Joe Average" is expecting from Alienware exactly the same thing that HP or Dell promise: "mouth breather support" and empty reassurance that he bought the right product. When he finds out that he needs to do some thinking for himself, he is going to get very annoyed. Even though RedHat and SuSE provide support, it's not the same. Read on to see why...
Think about this for a minute: How many "Joe Averages" in your life do you know who have bought a "beige box" and then complained to you about how it "never works" or "is always breaking/crashing/disconnecting from the internet, etc...". Now think about how many "Joe Averages" you know who bought HP, Compaq or Dell and complain just as much. I'll bet the beige boxes get more complaints. However, it has nothing to do with the HP or Dell being better than the beige boxes. It has to do with how good they are at making the customer FEEL like HP or Dell are better than the beige box vendors. Now... think about most "Joe Uber Geeks" you know. Which do they prefer, beige box or HP/Dell? Same with the OS... Linux or Windows? And that is where the problem with pushing Linux into the mainstream is right now. Unless Linux gets pre-installed at the factory on a "big name" (Doesn't have to be HP or Dell... could be an entirely new player.) box, has support for even the dumbest questions and lots of that "reassurance", it's going to leave a bad taste for the early noob adopters.
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux and use it exclusively at home. My family also uses it. The problem isn't the installer either... "Joe Average" SHOULDN'T BE installing ANY OS. At least not at this time. That's where the bad OS reputations come from; bad installation experiences.
As an aside, I will say this: I think the first Linux distrib that WILL take off with the "Average User" is the one that installs like an application rather than an OS. Think MacOS 7/8. What a beautiful installer! Just boot off the CD and you have... A DESKTOP! Something you already know how to use in 75% of the cases. How do you install the OS? Just run the setup off the CD and walk through the wizard in an environment that you are ALREADY familiar with (that "Desktop", remember?) If someone puts out a distrib that does that, then maybe... just maybe Linux (or any other OS) might be ready for "Joe Average" to install on his PC.
Un-news
Ugh WMP on Linux? Something seems horribly wrong about that, just like downloading IE and using it on OS X.
Let's remember that this is the same company that misrepresented itself during the DoJ trial, that is known to engage in blatent FUD, absolutely dishonest marketing tactics, requiring users to 'register' their OSs with it in order to activate their license, etc., etc... Now, would I want anything on any of my linux boxen from a company like this? I'll give you a hint: the answer has only two letters.
Me whump OGG on head - That's where the "In Soviet Russia" jokes came from!
I've got Windows 98 and Mandrake Linux on my PC and even in Windows I don't use WMP (too much weight for me. And I have 512MB). I use n.player, so, why should I use WMP on Linux if I don't use it on Windows?
I would use it as I'm getting tired of waiting for RealOne.
I am usually very faithful, but in this case I'm not sure to whome....
...it's a nasty, semi-legal hack...
Reminds me when I got a speeding ticket and the judge found me semi-guilty. (It wasn't bad; I only paid a semi-fine.)
Well, the last news I saw said that Linux on the desktop was growing.
It should be for the content providers to reach their audience, not for the consumers to 'fit into' whatever niche the content providers want.
If Linux gets say 5% of the desktop then that's quite a big market, especially if that market is in developing economies.
The content should come to us, we shouldn't come to the content. That's the battle I'm fighting, what's yours.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I say why the fuck not? Whatever happened to choice people?
I was starting to think I was the only one. Are there more of us?
Mplayer works great for me, but the think that WMP has over the Linux/Mozilla desktop is the browser intergration. I want to be able to go to sites and have streaming video just work.. I've tried plugger for mozilla, but the apple site just don't work even though I can download the mov and playit it mplayer, but reading the html sucks
If linux zealots want to attract them, and doesn't want to use Microsoft products, then they need to create their own DRM players.
If you don't like it, don't use the products of those content providers.
...fire hot.
This headline cracks me up.
In walking, just walk. In sitting, just sit. Above all, don't wobble.
-- Yun-Men
Its very true. I use WMA all the time without using DRM. Now WMA has an option of being able to use Digital Rights Management, but its not a requirement.
WMA 9 is awesome and its too bad linux users are too good for Microsoft's products.
It's funny how people forget things after nine versions.
Originally, Microsoft released Windows Media Player 1.0 for Linux and several UNIX variants. Technically, Xing did the ports under contract from Microsoft. This was done during the Progressive Networks (now Real) waring, when, I suppose Microsoft overestimated the UNIX and Linux userbase for RealPlayer. Another version for Linux was never produced, and I believe that WMP for Linux is to this day the only end user application software that Microsoft has released for Linux.
I downloaded it and tried it out. It did exist, though I can't seem to find anything to back up my story on the web. If anyone has a link to any info, I'd like to know about it.
~GoRK
I wouldn't want to use WMP in Linux. The whole point of using Linux in my opinion is to extricate myself from proprietary systems. Anyone who makes media in only WMP format obviously is not sympathetic to that goal. Perhaps I'm too weak to resist it once in a while, and I'll have to boot into Windows to view a trailer or to play a game, but I want to make that explicit. This is a compromise. I'm willing to do it but I'm trying to fix it.
I noticed the other day that installing WMP 7.1 (which I despise for reasons that are my own), and then uninstalling it leaves behind the codecs to decode the more wacky Windows formats that WMP 6.4 can't do. Hence, once you uninstall it and go back to 6.4, you've got all the codecs you need to view movies made in silly MS formats. YMMV of course.
People shape laws. Not the other way around.
Not really. Support for the format maybe, but not the player itself. I already use Xine to play .avi and MPEG, and I like it a lot. (Works right out of Nautilus. Well, the default GUI sucks and there's only one halfway decent skin that doesn't make my eyes bleed, but the keyboard controls are pretty damn good, it works just fine fullscreen, and the LIRC support is a big bonus!) And, I already also use XMMS for my net radio purposes.
This is perharps the only reason I don't like Realvideo that much: It requires a separate player program, and RP8 as a player application is inferior compared to Xine. (No support for full screen, when maximized it uses a lot of processor (ever heard of this thing called Xv?) and misbehaves the window, playlist needs manual advance, and oh, I could go on...)
I'm fine with sites insisting using some certain format as long as I'm able to play it, but I really dislike the fact that doing so needs me to use an app that doesn't work as nicely as my Player Of Choice.
And please don't ask me to compare Windows Media Player 7 and Xine... (*cough* did you hear that? that was thousands of Windows users hard disks merrily rattling as they find out there's an executable called 'mplayer2.exe' somewhere...)
Not wanting to worry you or anything but:
in the UK[the land of Big brother],
Either:
they won't switch the pump on until you number plate has been taken, compaired against a nationwide database of dodgy numberplates etc...
Eveyone I've ever know to do driveoffs pinches the numberplates from a simila car first.
Or: you have to hand your card over/pay upfront.
Not all the time, but quite often.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Linux support (for WMA or anything else) isn't really important. Whether something being a documented standard that anyone is allowed to implement, is what's important. See to that, and then you'll have your precious Linux support.
You're going to feel like a moron if you start using this software, and then some day want to migrate to another processor or another OS, and can't because you're "locked into Linux." Or worse yet, you won't feel like a moron, because you'll be as blinded and numb as the MS Windows users, and not be able to put your finger on what is causing your unhappiness.
Fuck WMA. Vorbis is the answer.
Fuck WMP. Think of it as a free promotional crack pipe. It may be offered to you, but it won't be for your benefit.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
NO, I wouldn't want a WMP for Linux.. but well, yes (I feel like Gollum). Afterall, I can't even use the streaming audio from Yahoo.com (BSD based as it is) without windows media player. It dissapoints me when the Unix community supports windows proprietary formats without supporting open/Unix formats as well.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Is the answer "ya", by any chance?
Ok, that sentence is a troll. :)
However, I'd like to agree with the spirit of your post. I personally switched to GNU/Linux because I was sick of clicking OK buttons in Windows and then having to reboot. I only reboot my computers now when a breaker blows, and instead of a long series of stupid fucking OK dialogs I get a single dialog that says "If you think you're qualified to do this to your computer, you know the ROOT PASSWORD:".
All the stress, the frustration, the headaches of Windows just fell away and I felt myself becoming empowered to do exactly what I wanted, when I wanted.
Freedom is a beautiful thing, often not missed when it's not known to be missing.
Like what I said? You might like my music
There's always Mosaic, with HTML 1.0. ;)
What's this Submit thingy do?
I don't even use windows media player in windows.
-
All those formats work in Xine also (-:
Here you can find a nice rpm w/ them in it:
http://plf.zarb.org/
I would possibly use WMP9 if It didn't have any Digital Rights Management and it doesn't try and take over my linux box.
5i9|\|3d, 5|\|ip3ri|\|di59ui53
about as much time as IE for Unix got - maybe a little more. Heck - I even installed IE for unix when it came out, but there were already other things I was used to using that did just as good a job, and I am pretty sure it will be the same for me with wmp.
I would never use it because of the EULA, but I think it would be great for have it as an option, I mean there is great media playing software for linux, but what window to linux convert is going to know how to get audio working in Xine (I still havn't) or install MPlayer with all its tarballs?
Just a little something about Linux usibility,once the software is installed its no harder than Windows its the compiling source code at the command prompt and dealing with dependency problems with RPMs that are going to keep ordernary users away
Before mplayer, video compatibility was the #1 reason I could not use linux as my primary OS.
:)
Period.
Now? My pretty little Fujitsu P2040 has been running Gentoo for about 2 months and loving it.
Mplayer plays everything!
The *only* thing it needs is an option to automatically repeat playbeack- perhaps I'll add that myself
And the idea of using the win32 codecs in tehir binary form is sheer brilliancy.
I will *definitely* be sending some $$$ their way- and I encourage everyone who uses linux to check it out if you haven't already- and you'll likely feel the same way.
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
> The time I spent in Linux was far mor rewarding, becuase rather than spending time trying to figure out what little thing was stopping the "magic" of Microsoft from working, I instead spent the time getting little bits to work. One feels like an achievement the other a time sap.
Hahaha it's interesting you put it like that- I feel the same way.
I've tried to use linux as a desktop many times over the years, but have been unable to do so until recently.
But you have it exactly right- under Win2k, it was always me trying to figure out what the hell could possibly be causing Nero Burning Rom to crash when the ethernet cable was plugged in, but would work fine when it was not (actual problem reproducible in my house right now!!!)- but under Gentoo- it's just small little steps that feel like accomplishments.
"Yay I got my wireless working!"
"Yay my USB mouse now works after a suspend!"
"Yay I got xv support for my Ati with the GATOS drivers!"
Today my system is in a day-to-day usable state- the only niggling problems left are the damn net dependencies of some services (can't start sshd if eth0 can't DHCP) and some random stuff like that.
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
Yes, not to mention the fact that mplayer has some of the sweetest-sounding, crispest-looking null audio/video output the world has ever seen!
You know where you are? You're in the $PATH, baby. You're gonna get executed!
On a Debian system, add to your /etc/sources.list:
deb http://marillat.free.fr/ stable main
Then:
apt-get libdvdcss video-dvdrip mplayer xine-dvdnav
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
What makes you think it works there? They break their own codecs on Windoze 2000 as well. My father in law's computer had the latest and greatest media player and it refused to show images with AVI files from my Cannon digital camera. It playes some kind of stoner screen saver and the sound. Quick Time played them, OLE in the browser was broken - it played the sounds but not the picture. This made it difficult for me to make a CD of baby movies with an html index. My solution was to include Mozilla, which worked on the same computer under w2k by calling the plugins as seperate programs. So there you have it, Media Player did not play well on it's own or with IE on Win2k. In other words, it sucked out loud.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
And microsoft said that those claims that its applications would go on linux were all balderdash. This is just the first step.
I don't want to use it. Thanks for asking though.
Is the answer. I don't even use it under windows (Zoomplayer is better). Outside of Windows, WMP becomes completely worthless.
Have you ever tried WMP on OSX? Pathetic codec support. It is clearly packaged to provide the least MS can get away with in supporting their server side products. I have a handful of ASFs and WMVs it can play, but not a single avi (even the common, non-divx codecs). It only supports codecs endorsed by MS to run from MS streaming servers.
Apart from codec support, the UI is crap compared to other programs for my use. I have set up mplayer to do seek, volume control (2 wheel mouse), pause, and play all without the keyboard or need to have the mouse on any surface while playing back in fullscreen mode. The GUI part of mplayer isn't that good, but I never use those if I can avoid it anyway, too inefficient. I don't have to deal with a klunky keyboard on my set-top box. I don't have to fork over cash for a remote control setup. Sure, it would beat Realplayer, but pretty much anything would. I'm still not happy about realplayer sucking so much. If only mplayer could seek in realmedia streams...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
audio and video formats should be like bread....no matter what "brand" of bread I buy, my trusty old (non blue tooth enabled) toaster can make use of them. (IE -- I don't sit in the grocery store bread isle scratching my head wondering if the toast will match the toaster....)
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
The key issue is that MS are considering licensing the WMP9 DRM platform for use on other platforms, including linux.
This does not mean that there will be a Windows Media Player release for linux. Hell, there might be - but why would we care, when it may be possible to get (eg) a Xine plugin?
Personally, I don't like it one bit. I quite definitely want to steer clear of DRM, its a slippery slope indeed. First, pay-per-view downloadable movies. Before you realise what's happened, its demanding a licence or auth number to play your CDs, etc.
I don't want to be someone that people like MS, Real can use in their stats to say "we have xx BlahDRM enabled users, so clearly DRM isn't actually excluding anybody or otherwise flawed - come use it".
strace /path/to/binary 2>&1 | tee /tmp/tracelog
/tmp/tracelog and stdout.
/boot/vmlinuz*, ls, ld.so, /etc/ld.so.conf, etc.
will write a strace to
If for some reason MS were to come out with an actual WMP/lin release not just license the codecs to, say, Real, that'd be the way to make sure it wasn't modifying libc,
what program should I use if I want all the functionality of WMP without actually using it?
when the rain comes, they run and hide their heads. they might as well be dead.
Well, since WMP9 doesn't even come with support for playing Ogg/vorbis stuff, it should be pretty much a no brainer.
Ogg sounds better and compresses smaller than MP3 and WMA, plus no copyright restrictions.
I'm more worried about my hearing getting trashed by cranking up the volume on my headphones than I am about the "neuroacoustics" that I can't "really" hear causing it to degrade.
This is what I use:
a) Linux - mplayer and videolan (I dont like xine)
I also tried avifile but it gets stuck while playing corrupted divx files)
b) Windows - Dogma- MUCH better than Windows Media Player it is not free but it is cheap ($25)
c) Mac OS X - Mplayer and videolan. ATTENTION!
Mplayer works not only on Intel but on many other platforms (PPC, Sparc, etc)
Under MAC OSX mplayer does a much better job than Windows Media Player (of course win32 codecs cannot be used but ffmpeg does a nice job)
xmms=winamp clone for linux (and other unices)
This is a test.
Sorry.
So my question to any considering Windows Media Player 9 for Linux is this... why would anyone choose MS WMP9 for Linux when there must be smaller, faster, more efficient (CPU speed needed for a given format) more capable (plays more formats) players than MS WMP9?
The only reason I can think of is to support certain MS formats, like asf, WMV, their other funky mpeg formats. I'd expect that if OS/2 supports them, that a native Linux media player must also support them (with all the Linux-like factors I listed above).
[OS/2's WarpVision supports (video:) DVD, DivX-3, DivX-4, DivX-5, XViD, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, AVI, ASF, Quicktime/Sorenson v1, (audio:) AC3, PCM, MP3 and WMA] including scaling 16:9/4:3/16:9, arbitrary scaling, audio resampling, full DVD title, angle, chapter, subtitle language, soundtrack language (even select from multiple instances of the same language) and more.
This ISNT meant to sound like an OS/2 ad... here's why: Much of the work on WarpVision is from the Linux world. SO, if OS/2's WarpVision plays all of those formats with all those features (and is skinnable), is 800K, plays DiVX,s on half the hardware Win98 needs, I'd imagine that the Linux base that WarpVision is partially based off of is at least as capable or nearly as capable (making WMP9 for Linux obsolete before it's even written)...
And if not, then the Linux guys should probably talk to the WarpVision for OS/2 guys about porting some of the OS/2 code (codecs, whatever the code happens to be that is needed on the Linux player )that OS/2 has, back to Linux.
The WarpVision home page is at WarpVision for OS/2 Warp and eComStation
A MUCH MORE (I think) IMPORTANT NOTE is this: Linux (and Apple) adopting WinMedPlay9 will just reinforce MS's push into DRM (hmmm... wonder if the Linux versions are supposed to come with it built in like their Win counterparts? Oh wait, yes they are - hence the whole first paragraph on The Register).
A SECOND EQUALLY (I think) IMPORTANT NOTE is this: since it would have to come with DRM (if I am reading the Register article correctly) there are of course a dozen insecure back doors that WMP9 would open to an (otherwise) secure Linux system, both to implement DRM, and for whatever reason MS seems to keep opening more non-DRM related ports and more non-DRM related back doors on every Windows and WinMediaPlay release. This alone should be enough reason that (regardless of available codecs) NO Linux user would want to download/choose over a Linux app/switche to Win Media Player9.
Just my (overcaffeinated and rambling) opinion
-Rob
WebMaster:
BinFeeds
XXX Thumbnailed Image Newsgroups but
I still maintain the point that designing a monolithic kernel in 1991 is a :-)
fundamental error. Be thankful you are not my student. You would not get a
high grade for such a design
-- Andrew Tanenbaum to Linus Torvalds
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...