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.
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.
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"
Mplayer works just fine, without Microsoft ... http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
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!
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
... 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.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.
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
Since the software would not be semi-embedded in the OS (like Windows), you still have choice.
Unlike Windows with its closed APIs, the Linux solution would not have strings attached to it.
Still, I think it is a good thing.
Sadly, Microsoft does not own the market on writing bad software. Every company out there does it, it's just that the big guns get noticed for it more than the little pee shooters do.
I have nothing to gain from them monitoring me, and they didn't even bother to ask for my permission, so as far as I am concerning there is no justification for it. Kind of puts thing in a different perspective now, doesn't it, Anonymous Coward?
Another way to look at it is imagine someone walking into your house and just sitting next to our computer and writing down everything you watch on your media player program. Still don't see my point? Reread the first paragraph and think about it.
On the same side of the coin, I don't see a reason to switch to a invasive media player application when there are non-invasive open source solutions that do MORE that Microsoft's application already out available. No, M$ can keep their crappy spyware on their own OS, IMHO.
I can't afford a sig!
I can see it now... "Load this proprietary, binary, non-free kernel mod in order to run Media Player!"
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
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..
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
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!
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
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?
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.
Better not use it...Why?
Because of MSFT's history of changing protocols etc. This could be an attempt at "lock in".
StarTux
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
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).
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.
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
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.
...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.
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.
And then one day your motherboard goes and the only thing you can buy is a DRM enabled motherboard. What do you do then?
...fire hot.
This headline cracks me up.
In walking, just walk. In sitting, just sit. Above all, don't wobble.
-- Yun-Men
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 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.
There's always Mosaic, with HTML 1.0. ;)
What's this Submit thingy do?
I don't even use windows media player in windows.
-
You no understand. M$ is building DRM into everything they produce now. For NOW it is optional but the intent is that as it becomes more widely spread, that "optional" will become "required". M$ is trying to creep up with required DRM by starting with "optional". It will not remain optional and more and more content will come to require it.
If you refuse to use it, then their DRM scheme will be aborted.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
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.
Eh? I have for a friend installed mplayer completely in a single command-line: apt-get install mplayer. I usually emerge mplayer. xine I've fallen more out of favor (on average, mplayer gets support for new codecs faster, and pays more attention to the native movie resolution and aspect ration than xine, but every time I have toyed with it it has been straightforward.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Well, there *is* support for anything WMP9 would play and more in mplayer. Which brings me to the next point, Realmedia (and now even most all Quicktime) is also supported (though Realmedia lacks seek in mplayer).
If you absolutely need seek, and want a realplayer that supports xv and fullscreen, there is a realone 'alpha' for linux that is pretty stable. The UI still sucks ass (no keyboard shortcut for ff/rw, dammit), but the video performance is good.
Personally I love mplayer as I have mapped all the play control functions to mouse functions that don't require the mouse to be moved, only that I can spin the wheels (2, one for seek, one for volume), and click a mouse button for pause. Don't want to mess with a keyboard while watching things through TV-out, and don't want to fork over the cash for a remote that would just be redundant.
Xine is cool, and was the first to have open source sorenson decoding, but on average mplayer gets the features faster. The gui is crap for those who care, but for full-screen operation with highly customizable controls (a must for set-top operation), mplayer can't be beat. Of course only through totem does xine have a decent interface. If only mplayer would provide an api for frontend writers, the biggest complaint about mplayer could be solved without the main development team worrying about it. Control through a pipe is good and all, but to be able to harness the decoding capabilities however we see fit would be fantastic.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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.
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.
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