Slashdot Mirror


Divx Now Adware Supported Only

bogomip_bandit writes "The divx codec is no longer free, no strings attached. Until recently, when downloading the codec from divx.com, one could select Dr Divx for a price, Divx Pro for a price, the divx codec for free, or the divx codec with bundled adware to help support divx development etc. Recently the site has changed. Now when one visits the download page, the only free codec you can download is adware supported. This means even to just watch divx movies and not do any actual enncoding, one has to install adware on their machine. I for one will be finding a different video codec." Sounds like a good reason (if you needed one) to look curiously at Ogg Theora. Update: 08/20 20:04 GMT by T : Correction: As several readers have pointed out, the bare codec is still available, it's just listed below the payware / adware versions.

590 comments

  1. Unless... by slimsam1 · · Score: 1

    Unless you use Linux, right?

    --
    ...
    1. Re:Unless... by zr-rifle · · Score: 3, Informative

      Right.

      DivX 5.0.5 is still available for Linux here, no adware attached. Actually, it would be quite funny if adware was included as that would be the first case of linux adware afaik.

      --
      Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
    2. Re:Unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera (unregistered) for linux showed ads. Does that count?

    3. Re:Unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Nope:

      u-EzFyd-vLKVw-x6BLw-5aivA-txSfQ

      (Opera for linux serial)

    4. Re:Unless... by zr-rifle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes it does. Actually, it would be more correct to rephrase "adware" with "spyware" since software developed by Gator or Digital Brliiance actually spies on you, instead of simply showing ads (as any normal browser would do while browsing the web: in that sense, browsers are 'passive adware').

      Obviously, DivX staff would never do that since "spyware" would turn off a lot of potential downloads. However, EULAs aren't very informative on what kind of activity you are permitting this software to do in exchange for you right to use DivX Pro. If it's true that programmers should get something out of their hard work (and DivX devs should with doubt), it's also true that the user should be correctly informed and be allowed to completely opt-out if he wishes. No Gator or Digital Brilliance program allows you to do that.

      --
      Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
    5. Re:Unless... by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      After reading a title I was wondering for a moment wondering if somebody put ad-ware in MPlayer CVS:) Nope.

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    6. Re:Unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, very funny Mr. Krach. Opera is a great browser though, and I will certainly purchase a copy once I get a job.

      Regardless, anyone should be able to try it out w/o being forced to look at annoying ads.

    7. Re:Unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...instead of simply showing ads (as any normal browser would do while browsing the web...

      Does that mean mozilla isn't a normal browser?

    8. Re:Unless... by edgezone · · Score: 1

      DivX 5.0.5 is still available for Linux here, no adware attached. Actually, it would be quite funny if adware was included as that would be the first case of linux adware afaik.


      Hmmmm....adware for linux? projected 25% growth yearly? first to market? hmmm....*dollar signs for eyes*

      Uh oh, better get an unlisted phone number and multiple PO boxes now. ;)
      --
      -- If you can't laugh at yourself, someone else will do it for you.
    9. Re:Unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Funny, I encountered this installing DivX, and only took a few seconds for me to notice that the free one was below the other three options.

      Whoever submitted this is a huge dumbass. That means you, bogomip_bandit@hotmail.com

    10. Re:Unless... by damiam · · Score: 1

      Nope, Opera has had Linux adware out for a long time.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    11. Re:Unless... by Gherald · · Score: 1

      > Does that mean mozilla isn't a normal browser?

      Yes, thats what it means. Mozilla is a superior browser ;)

    12. Re:Unless... by mirko · · Score: 1

      Regardless, anyone should be able to try it out w/o being forced to look at annoying ads.
      You want the goat, the cabbage and the milkwoman's ass at once ?
      No : you should accept whatever they give you and look elsewhere if you're not satisfied. Otherwise you're just a wannabbe-moralist-thief.

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    13. Re:Unless... by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      I don't see how my funny joke was offtopic, while the parent I was parodying gets informative :P stupid mods...

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
  2. Look further down by jagger · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is a link to download the divx codec (no cost) without the adware below the three main choices. the url is:

    http://download.divx.com/divx/DivX505Bundle.exe

    1. Re:Look further down by Satan+Dumpling · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hehe, he didn't even read the whole page before complaining...

    2. Re:Look further down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Most short-lived story ever. Only thing that'd make this worse is if they posted a dupe.

    3. Re:Look further down by ParnBR · · Score: 1

      Actually, they only changed the page layout. DivX is still free (as in beer), but DivX is paid or adware (just as before). Mac and Linux versions are still free (as in beer), by the way.

      --
      My neighbor's .sig is better than mine.
    4. Re:Look further down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he trolled the editors. The giveaway line is the

      I for one will be finding a different video codec.

      I for one welcome our new misleading story overlords!

    5. Re:Look further down by k98sven · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wow. Most short-lived story ever.

      Well.. there was that one about SCO showing off infringing code.. :-)

    6. Re:Look further down by ParnBR · · Score: 1

      Darn. I should have paid more attention. DivX is free, DivX Pro is paid or adware.

      --
      My neighbor's .sig is better than mine.
    7. Re:Look further down by jagger · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So you responded to my comment with the same comment plus a little jab at the editors. Great.

    8. Re:Look further down by dan_polt · · Score: 1

      Way to go slashdot editors. Everybody is human! And this way this article has changed into "divx free version cleverly hidden"... Does it not highlight the fact that not-everbody spotted it.

    9. Re:Look further down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you responded to my comment with the same comment plus a little jab at the editors. Great.

      Well, he also proved that he can use this little thing I like to call an A HREF tag. You might refer to it as a link, it's... well, kind of handy when posting URL's.

    10. Re:Look further down by phalse+phace · · Score: 1

      That's a new one. A submitter not getting (reading?) the whole story before submitting it. Usually it's the other way around, with the one posting the comment not reading the article. Classic!

    11. Re:Look further down by kudos200 · · Score: 1

      true. the codec is available. but there is a change from how things used to be.

      you used to be able to download the divx player with the divx codec, for free. you could download the better players (with encoding, etc) for money or with adware.

      now, you can only download the codec for free (i can't be fully certain, since i'm at a linux machine and have no access to a windows box, but if i remember correctly, the exe file you linked to is only the codec). no more divx player (which i kinda liked) for free. that is definitely a change from how things used to be. mod me down if i'm wrong, but that's what i think the change is.

    12. Re:Look further down by TheViffer · · Score: 2, Funny

      No .. he actually took the time to include the link in html.

      But after doing some research, it can be shown that your comment was copied from earlier prior work that is publically available.

      Therefore claiming that he stole your intellectual property is a false and misleading claim.

      Arg .. Dam SCO articles .. look what they are doing to me!

      --
      -- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
    13. Re:Look further down by daeley · · Score: 4, Funny

      This advert for Ogg Theora brought to you by...Ogg Theora!

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    14. Re:Look further down by kurosawdust · · Score: 1

      that same URL is in the parent post to which you replied. Way to go you.

    15. Re:Look further down by rf0 · · Score: 1

      Or of course you can just look on kazaa

      Rus

    16. Re:Look further down by wyverspur · · Score: 1

      Actually, by sheer coincidence, I installed the free codec last night, and the player is still available in that free bundle. I don't use it personally though.

    17. Re:Look further down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, the codec is there. The player/encoder/decoder software is what is being charged for.

      Folks, it's pretty sad that we (including myself) are such parasites that when one company decides to try to get compensation (though cash payment or adware) the parasites decide to jump the ship and cling on to another host for freebees. I like free as much as the next person, but if it's a good product I'll put up with ads or actually cough up the dough.

    18. Re:Look further down by NakedChick · · Score: 0

      I'm looking down, but all I see are my pubes. But what do I know? I'm just a naked chick.

      --
      --
      So I'm naked. So what?
    19. Re:Look further down by Merk · · Score: 2, Funny

      So now, with the correction on the front page, the story can be summarized as: "The divx site changed and for a moment it seemed like you could only use an adware-enabled version, but if you look closer you can see that you can still get the free one". This can be further summarized as: "The divx site changed".

      Way to go guys!

    20. Re:Look further down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      -1 boring

    21. Re:Look further down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're funny, I'm going to befriend you. Just remember, I was your fan before you became popular.

    22. Re:Look further down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean to say that Slashdotters jump to conclusions and get things hoplessly wrong? Well, I say! What's next? Duplicated postings?

    23. Re:Look further down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mewanna C yo punani, bia !

    24. Re:Look further down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      breastees, breasticals, boobicals, sweatermeat.... hmmm

    25. Re:Look further down by kudos200 · · Score: 1

      ok then, i was wrong. there still is the fact that they have moved the link from its previous prominence. and, it doesn't seem like the player is still included.

    26. Re:Look further down by VivianC · · Score: 1

      So this story is basically divx.com slightly redesigns its website? Guess that is worthy of the front page today.

      --
      Viv

      Gmail invites for ip
    27. Re:Look further down by NakedChick · · Score: 0

      No, I saw those first. He said to look further down. But what do I know? I'm just a naked chick.

      --
      --
      So I'm naked. So what?
    28. Re:Look further down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      finally, proof that confirms what we all knew allready ...
      slashdotters are too stupid to read properlly!

    29. Re:Look further down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got FUD?

  3. DIVX and porn by Hayzeus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Go together like toast and butter. Looks like some of us are going to have to go out and find girlfriends now...

    1. Re:DIVX and porn by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1
      " Go together like toast and butter. Looks like some of us are going to have to go out and find girlfriends now.."

      What a minute were slashdotters??? Shit.

    2. Re:DIVX and porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't know what the fuck you just said, little kid... but you special.. you reached down, and touched a brothas heart."

      -Pumpkin Escobar -Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back

    3. Re:DIVX and porn by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1
      Sorry I will get back to fucking my girlfriend.

    4. Re:DIVX and porn by gnuage.cowboy · · Score: 1

      UGH! thats sick! hehehe sorry dude ;-)

      --
      Yeah, I'm city livin' chillin' but I'm country at heart...
    5. Re:DIVX and porn by telstar · · Score: 1

      She said I was the only one!!!

    6. Re:DIVX and porn by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      hehehe

    7. Re:DIVX and porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You mean she is not the one?

  4. Re:My Linux Experience by Darkstar9969 · · Score: 0

    Thank you for venting.....this has WHAT to do with the Divx Codec again?

    --
    MMMmmmmmm....erotic cakes!!! Homer J. Simpson - Treehouse of Horror VI
  5. Time for DivX-lite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anyone volunteering to do for DivX what Kazaalite did for Kazaa?

    1. Re:Time for DivX-lite? by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2, Funny

      Naw, just DL DivxPro off Kazaa.

      However, they can shove their adware up their asses, sideways. I'm switching to Xvid...

    2. Re:Time for DivX-lite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, use Bitorrent.

  6. Guess what by s20451 · · Score: 2, Informative

    You think you don't need to pay for things? Good luck with that.

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    1. Re:Guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, I think PA's views on software piracy are a bit different than this current discussion on a previously free video codec.

    2. Re:Guess what by Sancho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My problem with this is that the Pro versions (which I'd gladly pay for) have similar copy protection schemes as Windows XP. I refuse to support software that requires internet registration and where, if I add a new hard drive to my computer, decides to stop working. I hesitate to say that it /might/ be ok from a company like Microsoft, whom we assume will be around for some time, but who knows if DivX is going to up and fold, leaving us high and dry with software we've paid for but can't use?

      Nope, if the free codec ever goes away, that will mark the end of DivX ever being installed on my system. It's ok, XVid is really coming along nicely anyway.

    3. Re:Guess what by s20451 · · Score: 1

      Uhh, I think PA's views on software piracy are a bit different than this current discussion on a previously free video codec.

      Uhh, why? If you click on the "News" link, the cartoon was inspired not by piracy, but by complaints that GameSpot is now a subscription site. That's pretty much right on topic here.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
  7. ffdshow by elohim · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's always ffdshow, a sourceforge project that includes both divx and xvid.

    1. Re:ffdshow by Shrubbman · · Score: 1

      First thing that popped into my head too, haven't used Divx in ages but that hasn't stopped me from watching any divx clips ;'> Including a link to get it from is always a Good Thing(tm) BTW

    2. Re:ffdshow by Derlum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I haven't installed the actual DivX codecs (besides 3.11a) since I found ffdshow. Not only does it handle XviD/DivX4/DivX5, but it does it more efficiently than the codecs themselves.

      This should be the part where I link to benchmarks, but I seriously can't find any. I can tell you that average CPU utilization on my P3-450 home theater box dropped from 65% to 35% when I switched (no postprocessing).

    3. Re:ffdshow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought postprocessing was a good thing? Doesn't it improve quality?

    4. Re:ffdshow by cOdEgUru · · Score: 1

      Only issue being you would be watchin porn in green and blue.. I dont know about you, but I dont want my porn looking straight out of HULK!

      Ofcourse, after uninstalling ffdshow and installing the xVid codec got me back on the straight path..

      Seeing boobies in blue took the fun away though..

    5. Re:ffdshow by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Wow, how come no one told me about ffdshow earlier? I just uninstalled the free DiVX 5.05 and put in ffdshow and they work pretty slick.

      I take it some of ffdshow is also in Xine?

    6. Re:ffdshow by maxume · · Score: 1

      go read this

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  8. I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    will not be surprised if this creates a slow move away from divx. The quality of divx is outstanding- but there are other codecs that are just as good.. and don't require me to pause my movie to close pop up ads.

    Does anyone know how this will effect mac playback, a la by VLC?

    1. Re:I for one by ickoonite · · Score: 5, Informative

      VLC, IIRC, uses the superb FFMPEG library for MPEG4-compatible-encoded video playback. Thus it is, fortunately, unaffected by this little bit of evilness.

      VLC, for those unaware, is a superb piece of cross-platform video-playback software, notably allowing region-encumbered DVDs to be played back on different region drives (certainly on Windows, anyway) and playing a load of formats to boot.

      iqu :)

    2. Re:I for one by jbottero · · Score: 1

      The quality of divx is outstanding

      If you like it so much, why do you object to paying for it? Let us assume you are a top notch programmer. Your boss likes your work so much he / she raves and raves and raves. But then he / she says, "gee, I really don't want to pay you to work here... That's OK with YOU, right?"

    3. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if she was hot, we might be able to work out something not so dependent on currency.

    4. Re:I for one by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Your boss likes your work so much he / she raves and raves and raves. But then he / she says, "gee, I really don't want to pay you to work here... That's OK with YOU, right?"

      What if you demanded an agreement that required your boss to continue paying you even if you quit?

      That's what DivX's internet activation system amounts to.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    5. Re:I for one by Trogre · · Score: 1

      So does MPlayer and xine.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  9. scrolling.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whats this? ->Download the DivX codec (no cost)-

  10. Using new codecs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    I for one will be finding a different video codec.

    Well, that's all well and good, but alas, the pr0n websites continue to use DiVX. What are we to do?

    1. Re:Using new codecs... by joe_bruin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i, for one, will start using more and more of my apps under a vmware installation of windows. and yes, i do run windows as my primary operating system. kazaa is already in there, as well as a dozen other apps i want to try without infecting my system. i can disable the network on the vmware os at any time, halt until i need it, and easily wipe it out and restore from a backup image.
      i realize this doesn't apply to this story since the submitter is a moron, but the fact is that it would not be surprising when it really happens

  11. You are hasty, my friend. by ShadeEagle · · Score: 2, Informative

    On the linked download page, under the Dr. Divx/Divx Pro, in a normal text link it says "Download the DivX codec (no cost)" which is NOT the Adware version.

    1. Re:You are hasty, my friend. by jpsst34 · · Score: 1

      I like your sig so I am lining up for high fives.

      --
      How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
    2. Re:You are hasty, my friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah, all the other guys who said the same thing were moderated informative/insightful... tough luck, huh?

    3. Re:You are hasty, my friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. They beat me by no more than a minute ;-p

  12. adware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they use gator...the ulitmate evil adware.

    Now if the damn greedy MPEG4 people would stop acting stupid and get the patent issue out of the way we could all use a truly open standard.

    Instead, it seems like everyone is out to help Microsoft build WMT.

  13. Yeah, this sucks. by JohnA · · Score: 5, Funny
    1. Re:Yeah, this sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Not as bad as having to find free real player on real.com. And then there comes installing, oh the humanity...

    2. Re:Yeah, this sucks. by jpsst34 · · Score: 1

      "Having to scroll down a bit and click a text link is such a PitA..."

      Mmmmmm... Gyros!

      --
      How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
    3. Re:Yeah, this sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EAT A COCK

    4. Re:Yeah, this sucks. by jpmkm · · Score: 1

      it's all greek to me.

  14. i wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what you get when you click that link named "Download the DivX Codec (no cost)"?

  15. How is this viable? by ChopSocky · · Score: 1

    DivX is great and all, but... with all sorts of other (great) codecs out there, why do they think they can essentially charge a fee for using theirs? Just curious.

    --

    "Joan of Arc, up top!" - Ghandi, Clone High
  16. Codec Link Below Choices by Sp4rtikuz · · Score: 1

    I downloaded to confirm, no GAIN...

  17. Uhhh... by badasscat · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think you might be missing something: Check here.

    The codec itself is not adware supported. It appears the only thing they've changed is the layout of their downloads page - they've de-emphasized the free codec download, but it's still there.

    1. Re:Uhhh... by sweetooth · · Score: 1

      I don't even think they changed the layout that recently. It looked like this with the codec link at the bottom a few months ago when I went and got the codec.

    2. Re:Uhhh... by Gherald · · Score: 1

      They just made room for the "Dr Divx" thing, which is new.

    3. Re:Uhhh... by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Looks like their layout change has worked for them...

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    4. Re:Uhhh... by thetamind_pyros · · Score: 1

      they've de-emphasized the free codec download, but it's still there.

      Much like the free RealOne player has been hiding in a corner of the download page for a long time now.

      Or try finding older versions or a linux version of the player. Good luck!!

      --
      Host localhost (127.0.0.1) appears to be up ... good.
    5. Re:Uhhh... by MattCohn.com · · Score: 1

      http://oldversion.com/program.php?n=real

      OldVersion.com makes finding older versions no trouble.

    6. Re:Uhhh... by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      Or try finding older versions or a linux version of the player. Good luck!!

      Worse, try finding the realone player for Linux. Hidden inside the allready hidden Linux player download page!

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
  18. A shame by Tack · · Score: 1

    That's really too bad. The divx player at divx.com was the only decent player I've seen that manages to properly play video created by mencoder.

    Does anyone know of other options?

    Jason.

    1. Re:A shame by spockbert · · Score: 1

      I've always been pleased with gdivx player. You should be able to get it here

    2. Re:A shame by Twister002 · · Score: 1

      Mplayer

      Options for what OS? I encoded movies using MEncoder and played them back using MPlayer and WMP just fine.

      --
      "For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman
    3. Re:A shame by alanxz · · Score: 0
      Does anyone know of other options?
      Video Lan Client (aka VLC). It does almost any video format imaginible, it runs on Windowz, *uix, and MacOSX, and its open source to boot! http://www.videolan.org
      --
      Q: Whats the difference between roast beef and pea soup? A: Anyone can roast beef, but not many can pea soup.
    4. Re:A shame by Repugnant_Shit · · Score: 1

      MPlayer, Xine.

  19. Nothing Changed by error502 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Actually, nothing has changed. Divx Pro has always been either pay or adware supported. They just introduced Dr. Divx, whatever that is. The link to download the Divx codec is further down on the page, and is completely free, as always.

    1. Re:Nothing Changed by error502 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh, god. Parent is going to get modded *so* redundant. Goodbye, Karma.

    2. Re:Nothing Changed by error502 · · Score: 1

      People suck.

  20. um, yeah... by Aero+Leviathan · · Score: 1

    The page was changed to make it less obvious, and perhaps trick less-savvy users into downloading adware. But as you can see, 'Download the DivX codec (no cost)' is still available right under that. I downloaded it recently; it still includes the basic codec and DivX Player 2.0 just as always.

    --
    ~ Aero
    1. Re:um, yeah... by Aero+Leviathan · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's DivX Player 2.1. And how silly of me to think I'd beat the ./ hordes in pointing out the article's error :P

      --
      ~ Aero
  21. Its Called FFDSHOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If all you want to do is to watch movies, try http://ffdshow.sourceforge.net/ Its a filter, not a codec, but it is faster and offers higher quality playback on all hardware, including nifty deblocking and deringing features.

  22. Heaven Forbid! by Tebriel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Heaven forbid that the developers might want some compensation out of their efforts.

    --
    The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
    1. Re:Heaven Forbid! by xSauronx · · Score: 1
      no kidding, free software is great...but how the hell can anyone complain about someone wanting money for the work theyve done?

      id understand if the work was full of repeat posts, spelling errors, inaccuracies and...well we all know why we dont have to pay to read at /.

      :)

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    2. Re:Heaven Forbid! by FooBarWidget · · Score: 4, Informative

      Compensation, yeah right. Remember OpenDivX? I'll tell you the story.
      At first, Project Mayo created the OpenDivX project. They claimed that it was "an open source version of DivX". (That claim couldn't be any more wrong; OpenDivX was licensed under the OpenDivX license, which wasn't approved by the Open Source Initiative.) Dispite that, people contributed code anyway.
      And on one day (about 1 year later), BAM. Project Mayo suddenly closed the CVS and turned all that code into their own, commercial, proprietary DivX 4 codec. OpenDivX is dead. The end.
      Not only did they stole the work that people contributed, they also took advantage of the confusion. A lot of people (including Slashdotters!) thought DivX 4 == OpenDivX, and thus thought that DivX is open source. That's plain wrong.

      They stole the work of contributors without giving anything back. Sorry but I have no mercy for those guys if they don't receive compensation. DivX.com can go bankrupt as far as I'm concerned.

    3. Re:Heaven Forbid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, these guys are fucken slimy.

    4. Re:Heaven Forbid! by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      :)

      Don't you mean ;) ?

    5. Re:Heaven Forbid! by wolrahnaes · · Score: 1

      Welcome to /.
      You must be new here.

      We support any software that is free as in either speech or beer, preferably both (mmm....free beer....)

      Good Karma = Compensation

      Codecs and the specs that go with them need to be free.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
  23. Xvid by Namaseit · · Score: 2

    Oh well i use xvid anyways.

    --
    75% of all statistics are made up!
    1. Re:XviD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xvid is a good codec, but it is not completly free. It has some code that is restricted by MPEG patents. That is why xvid.org does not distribute binaires.

    2. Re:XviD by jtdennis · · Score: 1

      Divx 5.0.5 is the latest, Divx Pro has always been adware/payware. They moved the free version off so they can have 2 things to charge and one "free" but with ads. I don't see anything on the page about what you say. Where is your proof?

      --
      -- "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" -Optimus Prime
    3. Re:XviD by Jugalator · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes, I would also recommend XviD before Ogg Theora right now since it's becoming a quite mature format these days and I can see no special reason to avoid it. The format has actually surpassed DivX already in popularity for encoding movies. A quick peek at nforce.nl shows that the earliest DivX movie in the list there was released at 2003-05-03, while the earliest XviD on the list was released 2003-08-01.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:XviD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is sharing TV shows illegal? Are they not freely available to begin with?

    5. Re:XviD by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Not any more than, say, a baseball game is, hence the joke on The Simpsons:

      "See that boat over there? They're rebroadcasting Major League Baseball games with IMPLIED ORAL consent, not EXPRESS WRITTEN consent.

      Or so the legend goes..."

      The point is that the material broadcast on TV networks is the property of the company who produced said content. The cable operators, networks, etc, which distribute this content must get broadcast rights from the owners of the property before they can use it. So, unless you get distribution rights to release the latest Simpsons episode on the 'net, it is in fact illegal for you to do so.

    6. Re:XviD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can record it for time shift purposes though.

    7. Re:XviD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What of the old, long cancelled shows that no longer run, even in syndacation and have zero commercial viability like The Legend of Zelda, Super Mario World, or Dinoriders?

    8. Re:XviD by JonMartin · · Score: 1
      It's completely free and GPL'd...

      <cough>oxymoron<cough>

      --
      Serve Gonk.
    9. Re:XviD by eht · · Score: 1

      Someone who is not you stills owns the copyright, that's all it takes to make distribution of the content illegal.

    10. Re:XviD by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 1
      Yeah, of course old non-adware versions of the divX codec will still be available for a while, but the point is that there won't be any new non-adware versions except the ones you have to buy.

      I don't see any statement that supports that. Where did you get this information from?

    11. Re:XviD by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "that no serious group has ever used for a release"

      What are you insinuating? That Divx is something other than a DVD pirate's codec of choice? You're not seriously suggesting that it's a commercial video encoding proposition are you? I do video compression professionally and NOT ONE of my clients has EVER expressed an interest in Divx.

      NOT ONE.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    12. Re:XviD by i_really_dont_care · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's completely free and GPL'd, and it's also already very popular [...], unlike Ogg Theora which is completely unheard of fringe experimental codec that no serious group has ever used for a release.

      XviD is great, but Theora clearly has other goals:

      (1) Because XviD is based on the MPEG-4 standard, it is well possible that there may be patent issues. Anyone participiating in the MPEG group could might be able to shut them down, or sue them for damages. Theora specifically aims for a patent clean standard, which is much harder to achieve.

      (2) Especially for video codecs (which are essentially plugins for programs) the GPL can be a problem. It may be that e.g. using a GPL'd codec with Microsoft Media Player is illegal. I know that this is generally up to interpretations, but I think that this is one of the few places where the opinion of the FSF and Microsoft don't differ ;-)

      (3) Theora is pre-beta. Although I wished myself they'd hurry up a little, I don't think it's fair to compare a tried-and-tested codec standard (MPEG4) with a pre-beta projekt (OGG/Theora).

    13. Re:XviD by molarmass192 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's completely free and GPL'd

      Not quite, you have to remember to send your payment to the MPEG LA group for a "Patent Portfolio License". There are a ton of patents in MPEG4. Here's an interesting link about a "per stream" fee MPEG LA is even considering

      Ogg Theora also has patents on the VP3 video codec but the license agreement makes it clear there are no royalties due for using or repackaging VP3. One of the key reasons why it's "fringe" is because it's hasn't been released as anything other than developer builds on Linux as of yet so there are no tools other than proofs of concept for creating and playing Ogg Theora streams yet.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    14. Re:XviD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eh you know that when he says serious group
      he means a serious warez realese group

      the only i can se his post is insinuating
      is that divx is a warez codec.

      serious dosent need to be legal or commercial

    15. Re:XviD by r_benchley · · Score: 1

      While Divx isn't what I would call a professional product, it is more than a tool for illegally pirating movies. Before I recently purchased my new laptop and DVD burner, my main portable machine was an iBook with a CD drive. I made Divx copies of movies that I legally purchased, so I could watch them on my iBook when I was away on trips. Also, it's a great, cost effective way to back up home movies that are going to suffer video/audio degradation from repeated palyings in a VCR. Not everyone has the money to invest in a DVD burner, making Divx a cheap alternative. Plus, they've released DVD players that recognize the Divx format.

    16. Re:XviD by zero2k · · Score: 1

      I could never get XviD to encode at all. I don't know what I'm doing wrong but every installation of Xvid has been moot in trying to get things encoded - the codec just barfs at me with an error. I got fustrated and just use XviD for playback. None of my other codecs have this problem...

    17. Re:XviD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ok. In most any industry, the clients have no clue as to what they really want or need.

    18. Re:XviD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The big problem with XviD is that for most people it's nigh impossible to find the codec.

      Lets say you're looking for the XviD codec : You go to google and search for "xvid codec". The first link is for "XviD.org :: Home of the XviD Codec". Horray! But what's this? All you can find is source downloads? What the hell?

      So, you read the FAQ, which contains no mention of this obviously Frequently Asked Question. You ask in the site's forum, and are told rudely that "Our page XVID.org is only about the development of XVID, not about anything else, in particular not about how to play downloaded movies. "

      So...where do I find the codec? Surely I should be able to find an answer at the "Home of the XviD codec"?

      Of course, eventually you can find it on some seedy third-party "DVD Backup" site, as compiled by "some guy", but you have to jump through hoops. Smells like a barrier to widespread adoption to me...

    19. Re:XviD by palp · · Score: 1

      Dude, xvid.com, while it may be a domain squatter, links to Koepi's and other builds. Not very hard.

      --
      -palp
    20. Re:XviD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah an unofficial site linking to some unofficial binaries gives me alot of confidence. I agree with the parent AC. I use Divx precisely because of Xvid's poor web presense and lack of an ease way to get recent builds.

      Until Xvid gets it act together its simply never going to apeal to as many people as Divx does.

    21. Re:XviD by Wavicle · · Score: 1

      So...where do I find the codec?

      Google for "xvid", the third link leads to a binary codec.

      Google for "xvid codec", the third link leads to a binary codec.

      Is it impossible to find a codec if the very first result google gives doesn't lead to a binary version? Based on google's page ranking system, I'd trust a site in the top 5.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    22. Re:XviD by tempny · · Score: 1

      Also, xvid is BUGGY. It works great when it does work, but I've heard millions of friends complain about "green box" problems or "slow sound/video" etcetc. I know for a fact that it doesn't play well with the ac3 audio codec, with which it's used frequently for some reason. It might be more advanced, but at least the old divx "just works".

    23. Re:XviD by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      Seems to work fine for me. It was easy to install to. I just selected in Synaptic, to have gmplayer and xvidcore. I know people think that installing software on Linux is difficult, but having installed media players and codecs on both Windows 2000 and Redhat 9... I must say that a 5-year old idiot could get xvid movies playing on Linux.

      Windows might be more difficult, but that is because it has no good means of software package management. Installing almost anything on Windows requires more work than doing so on Linux.

      If you have problems with xvids with AC3 codecs, it is most likely because you don't have a CPU capable of playing a movie with such a high-quality audio track. Typically DIVX movies come paired with mp3 audio tracks, and you are right, when it comes to high-quality audio... people choose to pair it with XVID video.

      Anyway, AC3 tends to have huge bitrates, surround sound, and other highend audio stuff. My crusty ears can't tell the difference between it all, so whatever.

      Green box problems are usually caused under windows when you have conflicting codecs, bad codecs, or you lack a codec. It has nothing to do with xvid being buggy, and almost always something to do with someone installing a couple of those huge codec packs on an operating system that can't detect shared library dependencies and conflicts.

      That is the operating system's fault.

    24. Re:XviD by babyrat · · Score: 1

      I use divX in my PVR (showshifter). I'm not pirating anything. I use it as I use to use my VCR. I don't share the shows I record, I don't display them publicly - I record them when I'm not around, watch them when I am, and delete them when I'm done.

      Perhaps it is not a professional commercial application, but it certainly is a valid (and legal AFAIK) use.

    25. Re:XviD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I do video compression professionally and NOT ONE of my clients has EVER expressed an interest in Divx."

      I do it in a really amatuerishly cack-handed fashion but hey - its free, and i don't give a fuck what format its in as long as I can copy it and watch it.

      Next.

    26. Re:XviD by Wavicle · · Score: 1

      I had that problem for a while. Some xvids were fine, others the hue was off, the video looked terrible, and they started with a completely green box. It turned out to be a problem with old xvid drivers floating around. Once I found reasonably new xvid drivers, all the green box issues went away.

      Since then I have become convinced that Xvid is superior to divx for 150KB/s streams and under. If given the choice between xvid and divx, I'd go for xvid every time.

      Divx not playing well with the ac3 audio codec sounds strange. Divx is an mpeg4 codec, isn't audio in a separate layer per the mpeg spec? Encoding your video in divx should not affect your audio. In any case, the only time I've ever had a problem with an ac3 encoded movie was when I didn't have the ac3 codec installed.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    27. Re:XviD by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Blizzard Entertainment, one of the world's largest computer game developers, are using DivX as cinematic compression codec of choice since a couple of years back when they stopped using the popular RAD Game Tools. An excellent choice IMHO since both DivX and XviD supplies us with and excellent trade off between video quality and size.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    28. Re:XviD by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 1

      I mean, regardless of when the divx.com sysadmin gets around to removing the old files, you will still be able to get old free versions from other sources (p2p, etc) Widely distributed files never just disappear from the net. Of course, sometime down the line, these will become obsolete, but it doesn't matter anyway. I don't see what any of the fuss is about when any slashdotter could just go and download the pay version (cracked) for free from gnutella or bittorrent or whatever. 99% of the stuff you'd be using the DivX codec for is illegal, and you hate adware sellouts, so why not just pirate DivX?

    29. Re:XviD by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 1

      Unlimited reproduction and distribution of taped shows is illegal by itself, but the fact that all the ads are cut out makes it even worse. The only reason its legal to tape copyrighted TV content is because of "fair use" which says you can make a copy of it for your own private backup/use Don't ask me why it should be illegal to distribute it with commercials intact, though.

    30. Re:XviD by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 1

      Windows might be more difficult, but that is because it has no good means of software package management. Installing almost anything on Windows requires more work than doing so on Linux. What the hell? How could it be simpler on Windows? 1.) double click on Nic's XviD binary installer 2.) click OK 3.) click OK 4.) DONE! That's how 99% of all software installations are on windows! You don't even need to restart!

    31. Re:XviD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "One of the key reasons why it's "fringe" is because it's hasn't been released as anything other than developer builds on Linux as of yet so there are no tools other than proofs of concept for creating and playing Ogg Theora streams yet."

      Well, get to it, already!

      MP3 already won out because it was first, so why wait?

    32. Re:XviD by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but how do you get the software installer on your desktop in the first place? With apt, you have trusted repositories of almost every piece of software known to run on Linux.

      So I have one unified app that I can search or browse for any software that I want, codecs included, I select to have what I want downloaded even multiple apps at a time... and then tell my unified app to fetch the selected software from the net and do whatever it takes to install it.
      The same app is also used for automatically updating all of my installed software.

      On windows you either have to hunt and peck around the net, try not to download adware, spyware, a trojan, virus, or worm, and also hope you are downloading the correct installer and not an old version or a version for a different version of windows. Then you try to install something, and it fails to run after install because you lack a Visual Basic runtime, DirectX runtime, Python runtime, or some other needed software component. So you go back to your web browser and hunt and peck for the needed software component. Repeat until something works. ...and you can forget about maintaining all of that software. Do you keep a list of the locations where you can download updates? How do you go about updating all of your software? Hunt and peck, one-by-one download update installers and double-click each of them? What happens if you missed something during that update? Are you sure you updated everything? Maybe your IRC client or email client lacks a security update, maybe it is AOL IM, who knows, not the user...

      THAT can be made far more simple and effective, as is done with apt on Linux, and yes apt has a nice GUI frontend.

    33. Re:XviD by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 1

      that's what decent googling skills are for. It took me under a minute to find the top 3 XviD binaries.

  24. Poor decision on their side by PovRayMan · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This will only help xvid and ogg theora, which is a good thing. DivX might be more fine tuned and official, but the majority of people won't want to install something with spyware regardless that programs like Ad-Aware and Spy Bot Search and Destroy can easily remove. Most people don't go around purposely installing Bonzai Buddy just so they have some other program working.

    Oh well, XviD is gaining popularity as well as developmental features. Soon more people will be using XviD and Ogg for encoding.

    1. Re:Poor decision on their side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stfu u fag that shit sucks :gb2gbs:

    2. Re:Poor decision on their side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh jesus christ, you fucking zealots.

      Ogg is not gaining anything. "People" (meanining 90% of those with any idea about music formats) know one format only. MP3. That's all they care about.

      Those that watch movies that they download from Kazaa, etc, know .avi. They don't know divx, xvid, etc. They know that WMP normally will download the codec automatically. If not, they sit there believing it's a fucking bad copy (ie 9/10 people that ask me why their movie just looks like a swirly pattern).

      Get fucking real.

    3. Re:Poor decision on their side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do I watched movies?

    4. Re:Poor decision on their side by Gherald · · Score: 1

      suprnova (if you don't already know how to get there, I won't tell you...) has a lot of movie torrents in XviD format, as oppossed to DivX. (no pun intended)

      I'd estimate at least 40%, maybe even 50% of the MPEG 4 encoded movies are XviD.

      But there are still plenty of those damn MPEG 2 SVCDs idiots keep uploading...

    5. Re:Poor decision on their side by GlassUser · · Score: 1

      We're not idiots. We were smart enough to get hardware decoders. I have several low cost systems scattered around my house (and soon my cars) that will play these back with almost no CPU usage.

    6. Re:Poor decision on their side by Gherald · · Score: 1

      Yes well, what rock have you been hiding under? Bandwidth is the limiting factor, not CPU usage.

    7. Re:Poor decision on their side by GlassUser · · Score: 1

      Not everyone cares to have the latest AMD oven in their bedroom. Or car radio.

    8. Re:Poor decision on their side by Gherald · · Score: 1

      Well so what if I have two Athlon 2500 systems @ 2312mhz, one of which is soon to be replaced by a P4 2.6ghz @ 3.25ghz?

      That irrelevant.

      My family used to play 3.11 DivX movies just fine on their K6-2 450mhz with an ATI rage pro, 32mb. Sure, by now I've upgraded them to an Athlon 2100 with an integrated Geforce 4 MX, but the point is old hardware plays DivX movies just fine near as I can tell.

      Just look at the DivX System Requirements

      Now if you have a processor thats 450 mhz I suppose you are out of luck, but those things are almost 10 years old.

    9. Re:Poor decision on their side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Now if you have a processor thats 450 mhz I suppose you are out of luck, but those things are almost 10 years old"
      It's 2003. 1998 was not 10 years ago.
    10. Re:Poor decision on their side by Gherald · · Score: 1

      You are right, but it sure seems like a hell of a lot longer than 5 years since we first got that system...

      But its pretty obvious that anyone who doesn't upgrade their computer for 5 years, and still expects to view the latest media, is a fool.

    11. Re:Poor decision on their side by GlassUser · · Score: 1

      But its pretty obvious that anyone who doesn't upgrade their computer for 5 years, and still expects to view the latest media, is a fool
      So what's the DVD industry going to do? I guess they'll have to vanish in a puff of logic.

      Reality check: computers are not about spending large amounts of money every year on the newest upgrades. It makes no sense to spend money to redesign and replace all of my existing systems with new systems that only comprise a small subset of their functionality for one single factor. CPU speed is not even really relevant for most applications.

  25. Microsoft Tax by h0tblack · · Score: 2

    Well, not exactly ;) But the point is it's only the Win32 version that follows this 'pricing' format. Freed download of the 5.0.5 codec for Mac and Linux are still available.

    1. Re:Microsoft Tax by axxackall · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Freed download of the 5.0.5 codec for Mac and Linux are still available.

      Not so fast:

      $ tar -zxvf divx4linux-std-20030428.tar.gz
      divx4linux-2003042 8/
      divx4linux-20030428/libdivxencore.so
      divx4lin ux-20030428/libdivxdecore.so
      divx4linux-20030428/ DivX MPEG-4 Codec and Its Interface.htm
      divx4linux-20030428/encore2.h
      divx 4linux-20030428/install.sh
      divx4linux-20030428/po rtab.h
      divx4linux-20030428/decore.h
      $ file divx4linux-20030428/libdivxencore.so
      divx4linux-2 0030428/libdivxencore.so: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
      $ file divx4linux-20030428/libdivxdecore.so
      divx4linux-2 0030428/libdivxdecore.so: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
      $
      It's just x86 version. Where are Linux/PPC, Linux/SPARC and all other Linux versions?

      And, by the way, where is the source code of *.so?

      --

      Less is more !
    2. Re:Microsoft Tax by Glendale2x · · Score: 1

      It's just x86 version. Where are Linux/PPC, Linux/SPARC and all other Linux versions?

      Mac OS, that is. Works on 8.6 or higher, including X. There is no Linux/PPC version AFAIK.

      http://www.divx.com/divx/system_requirements.php

      --
      this is my sig
    3. Re:Microsoft Tax by h0tblack · · Score: 1

      The Linux version is indeed just x86, but three versions (free, Pro-w/Ads and Pro-paid) are availible for the Mac. Alas no source for any platforms. Of course there are plenty of open prjects out there with varying degrees of compatibility with DivX Networks codecs.

      Not to mention that it seems that a win32 codec download is still available...

  26. good reason? by l33t-gu3lph1t3 · · Score: 1

    ...except Ogg Theora's quality blows chunks compared to Divx. Just use a well-documented (and legal!) registry tweak to disable the adware software.

    --
    ------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
    1. Re:good reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Post it?

  27. It was to be expected by ickoonite · · Score: 4, Informative

    DivXNetworks, IIRC, closed the source on an originally open project. This is just the (albeit rather belated) final stage in their evil plans.

    Anyway, DivX sucks! I can't quite see why anyone would bother with it when XviD and FFMPEG are available, both offering vastly superior picture quality. Still, I suppose DivX has the most bullshit and adware, ergo greater end-user appeal...*sigh*

    iqu :)

    1. Re:It was to be expected by Cyno · · Score: 1

      Still, I suppose DivX has the most bullshit and adware, ergo greater end-user appeal...*sigh*

      Only in the Microsoft world of candy colored windows and popup adverts. Almost makes using your computer feel just like watching TV. How relaxing.

    2. Re:It was to be expected by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
    3. Re:It was to be expected by ickoonite · · Score: 1

      But in the end, isn't that where we're going, with all this TV-computer integration, or something along those lines. I mean something like the computer as an appliance, or wherever it is this tech is headed.

      Alas perhaps it is this kind of "brain food" that the populace wants - (and at the risk of sounding elitist) it is the elite few who actually want to seek out information; the rest would rather just have it shoved in their faces, without a care as to its source or bias.

      Ugh, I sound like a historian or something. Oh well...

      iqu :s

    4. Re:It was to be expected by Cyno · · Score: 1

      Well, we have a choice to make here. We can either accept the medium as it exists today or create a new one. The new medium can possibly exist without commercials. But its unlikely we'll make any decisions, instead opting for corporations to make them for us.

      I'm already there. I watch TV on my LCD monitor in my living room. All the content is stored on my network. No commercials.

  28. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ermmm...bs, look at the bottom of three options you listed and you'll see "Download the DivX codec (no cost)"
    (posting as AC because I just don't have account...)

  29. Um, just remove the adware... by jpsst34 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Download and install the full-featured, adware-equipped divx codec. Then, run Adaware to find and remove all the Gator and other adware that is part of the divx package. All the divx with none of the crap!

    --
    How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
    1. Re:Um, just remove the adware... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      A lot of the divx stuff stops working if you do this, though. What you really need to do is to download the free version that has the adware removed properly

    2. Re:Um, just remove the adware... by PktLoss · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Personally, I do not see stripping out the ad-ware as an option.

      If there is software I like, and no non-adwre alternative is available. I make the choice
      1) Pay For the software
      2) Allow the ad-ware to be installed, and fully functional
      3) Find an alternative.

      If you don't like the distribution model, don't use the software, the argument for stealing it out of distaste for the distribution method instead simply doesn't hold water.

      I think the guilt-free popularity of things like Ad-Ware and cydoor.dll replacements its preventing new players from entering the subsidised market. Personally, I would love to watch a thirty second ad, or have an ad banner in some software, if it meant it was sold for a subsidised price I could afford (3D studio max for example, I will never be able to afford it, but loved playing with it when I had a chance). It just wont happen in the current market.

    3. Re:Um, just remove the adware... by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      I fully support this methodology and reasoning. I wish more people did. Yes, a lot of Adware software is poorly written and bogs down your system. I agree with that, but it doesn't give anybody a right to bypass their methods for compensation. I honestly think if people didn't keep trying to break Adware software, it would be written at least a little bit better and cleaner.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    4. Re:Um, just remove the adware... by Auckerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "If you don't like the distribution model, don't use the software, the argument for stealing it out of distaste for the distribution method instead simply doesn't hold water."

      I'm not sure what definition of stealing you are using, but it is certainly not one I am aware of. The copyright holder sent to the user an authorized copy of DIVX. So, there's no copyright violation. The user decicides to change the copywrited work that was sent to them, via the removal of adware, which is well within their fair use rights.

      If anything, this is a matter of contract law, where the user is most likely violating the "User Agreement". Even in that case, this is akin to someone offering a free radio, the only string attached was inside the box that the radio is contained in is a bag sealed with a sticker saying "By opening this package, you agree that the radio will play advertisements at random, even when the radio is off, over the current station." and in response to it, the user merely opens the radio and removes the chip that has the advertisements. It's his radio, he can do as he wishes with it.

      It's the users copy of DIVX, they can do as they wish with it.

      --

      Burn Hollywood Burn
    5. Re:Um, just remove the adware... by Backov · · Score: 1

      Personally, if I am in prison and I don't want to shiv my cellmate, I let him have anal sex with my as often as he likes.

      After all, if you don't like anal rape, why go to prison?

      --
      In the law there is no overlap between theft and copyright infringement whatsoever.
    6. Re:Um, just remove the adware... by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

      You guys really need to read the instructions on Doom9's forums about removing the adware legally. Adaware won't work. Follow the instructions and you'll be fine.

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
    7. Re:Um, just remove the adware... by JTunny · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for the adaware thats in with this, but I've installed some evil ad-ware before which took a little more than running adaware to remove it. It integrated itself with my browser, added itself as a DNS Suffix so that failed URLS would go to its search site. Still don't know where it came from to this day.

    8. Re:Um, just remove the adware... by babyrat · · Score: 1

      or pay the lousy $19.95 and buy it?

    9. Re:Um, just remove the adware... by pbhj · · Score: 1
      The user decicides to change the copywrited work ...

      Article 12 of the Berne Convention (signatories) states that:

      Authors of literary or artistic [ie copyrighted] works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing adaptations, arrangements and other alterations of their works.

      By removing a part of the 'work' you are making an adaption, you need authorisation from the owner of the copyright for that.

      Incidentally, I think protection of computer programs by current types of Intellectual Property Rights sucks.

  30. Matching ads? by blowdart · · Score: 1

    Well if they match the ads in the DivX Pro download to the most popular DivX content that will be a lot of "Increase your penis now" ads being shown ...

  31. This is why OSS is always better... by bhsx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We all got hooked on Divx. The Divx people know it. It will take at least a year for the effects of this to reverse itself and for the Divx encoders/users to switch to another format. Let's hope the Ogg folks come up with a viable alternative, or hey... why not just stick with what we have now until we can reverse engineer it into a OSS clone?

    --
    put the what in the where?
    1. Re:This is why OSS is always better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they didn't actually change anything. Not that facts should get in the way of any pet theories you might have

    2. Re:This is why OSS is always better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      we have already switched to XViD, people in the scene even complain when a movie isnt using it

      DivX got greedy and the people that made them famous are now abandoning them as fast as they can

  32. Forget Ogg, its time for Quicktime by Pray_4_Mojo · · Score: 1

    Apple's Quicktime player is free, with no ad-support. All that Apple needs to do is fix a bug that would prevent them from playing divx files. Time to start flooding their forums!

    1. Re:Forget Ogg, its time for Quicktime by BdosError · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sure, free, no ads. Except for the "Buy QuickTime Pro now?" popup every time you launch it. But at least there aren't any ads.

      --
      Complexity is Easy. Simplicity is Hard.
    2. Re:Forget Ogg, its time for Quicktime by Andy_R · · Score: 1

      Under MacOS 9, the fix for that is quite simple: set your clock for the far future, see popup, return to corect time, popup will not appear again until the far future is past.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    3. Re:Forget Ogg, its time for Quicktime by Neophytus · · Score: 1

      it doesn't pop when you load a vid, which is the only time i use it

    4. Re:Forget Ogg, its time for Quicktime by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Where?
      I don't see that popup ever.

      Of course, I *am* running that Sorenson codec under Linux. :)

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    5. Re:Forget Ogg, its time for Quicktime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soreson 3 is so 2000. The QuickTime world has moved on to the MPEG-4 standard.

    6. Re:Forget Ogg, its time for Quicktime by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean like everyone else has been using since 1999?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  33. Rubbish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This story is rubbish. There is still a free, non-ad supported version on that very web site you linked to above.

    This is obviously a troll or FUD.

  34. How does an article like this get posted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Interested to know whether the Slashdot editors validate incoming information to see if what the poster is stating has any truth to it.

    <sigh>

    1. Re:How does an article like this get posted? by kaltkalt · · Score: 1

      If so, they do a poor job at it. I'd rather attribute this to laziness rather than incompetence. Laziness before incompetence before malice, remember? So, I'd say the answer is no--they do not validate incoming info.

      --

      Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
    2. Re:How does an article like this get posted? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Interested to know whether the Slashdot editors validate incoming information to see if what the poster is stating has any truth to it.

      Obviously not, considering the number of broken links in articles (eg, yesterday one had http:www... , missing the //, so it gave an invalid link on slashdot.org instead of the intended site). And of course, heaven forbid they should bother to validate the spelling... how long has Unix spell/ispell etc been available? So imagining they would actually do a minimum factcheck, seeing that the cited source actually says what he submiter claims, is a bit starry-eyed.

  35. VLC by justMichael · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why not just use the VideoLAN Client?

    It does a lot more than I will ever need it to.

    1. Re:VLC by rlowe69 · · Score: 1

      Why not just use the VideoLAN Client?

      I second that ... mod the parent up. I use the VLC client on my Mac because Apple wants $29.95 for full-screen Quicktime ... forget about it. VLC is cross-platform and it's all I need.

      --
      ----- rL
    2. Re:VLC by justMichael · · Score: 1

      You would be correct based on the information provided to you by the editors.

      But in reality, the Player is Adware supported, not the codecs.

    3. Re:VLC by ickoonite · · Score: 1

      Parent is misinformed. VLC uses the FFMPEG libavcodec library.

      iqu :s

    4. Re:VLC by ickoonite · · Score: 4, Informative

      As I have said 4 or 5 times on this story now, VLC uses FFMPEG/libavcodec to play back DivX/XviD/other MPEG4 compliant video. Therefore, even if it were the case that it was the codec which displayed the ads, it wouldn't matter, because VLC doesn't use it.

      But as usual, the idiot moderators mod you up as 100% Informative. Those actually informed would know that it is 100% rubbish.

      iqu :s

    5. Re:VLC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect. VLC uses FFMPEG on Linux and Mac only. Linux, *BSD, AmigaPPC and Acorn versions all use the DivX DLLs above.

    6. Re:VLC by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      Yet another reason to use Mac OS. Adware, what adware?

    7. Re:VLC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Yet another reason to use Mac OS. Adware, what adware?"

      This AdWare.

    8. Re:VLC by Obiwan+Kenobi · · Score: 2, Funny

      But...can it check your email? ;)

    9. Re:VLC by DrewCapu · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      After getting a new 15" Powerbook I found I had problems playing a lot of files of mine whether it was through QT or (ugh) MSPlayer. Once I downloaded VLC I noticed that I was not only able to play all the files I had on my Powerbook that I couldn't play, but also all the files I transferred from my PC that I previously was never able to find the correct codec for.

      My only complaint about VLC is that silly icon, but that's easily changeable :)

    10. Re:VLC by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      No, you need emacs for that...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:VLC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use the VLC client on my Mac because Apple wants $29.95 for full-screen Quicktime ... forget about it.

      That $29.95 gets you a lot more than just full-screen. You might want to actually look into it instead of bitching.

    12. Re:VLC by ickoonite · · Score: 1

      Mod me down! I am misinformed! VLC does indeed only use FFMPEG on Mac/Linux.


      iqu :s

    13. Re:VLC by ickoonite · · Score: 1

      I wasn't actually trying to troll, just being an idiot...

      So in effect, I have proved my point about moderation...which, of course, is what I was planning all along...

      iqu :P

    14. Re:VLC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats pretty funny cos I WAS trying to troll, I don't even know what VLC is. Course this might not be me saying this.

    15. Re:VLC by rlowe69 · · Score: 1

      That $29.95 gets you a lot more than just full-screen. You might want to actually look into it instead of bitching.

      Full screen is the only thing I need out of all of the other features, thanks. A lot of people want just full-screen playback and $29.95 seems a little excessive for one feature. Nice try, Apple.

      --
      ----- rL
  36. Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's easy to remove adware. Ever heard of ad-aware? So who really cares if they bundle ad-ware with it as long as you can just as easily remove said ad-ware? Stop whining and get over it already.

  37. People using divx. by amanpatelhotmail.com · · Score: 1
    Do you think this will effect 90% people using DivX? I certainly don't.

    People uinsg DivX for watching movies are already freeloaders and guess what? they can also find full version of DivX codec without paying a penny. Bring on the warez!

  38. No, The Print Just Shrunk by andyf · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can still download the player codec for free, no adware. The *encoder* has been ad-supported for a while I think. They just shuffled the links around.

    The codec download just moved right below. "Download the DivX codec (no cost)" still just gets you the codec with *no* adware at all. The three options on the top are Dr Divx(pay), Divx Pro(pay) and Divx Pro(adware). They moved the codec and player to the text link to make space for Dr Divx. That's all.

    --

    Photos of bits of the past hiding in the present: afiler.com
    1. Re:No, The Print Just Shrunk by Glendale2x · · Score: 1

      You can still download the player codec for free, no adware. The *encoder* has been ad-supported for a while I think. They just shuffled the links around.

      Too bad your post can't be moved to the top. You're 100% correct; they just changed some links.

      Of course, someone panics and posts a story saying it's all adware now. If only they looked at the big fat link that said "Download the DivX codec (no cost)".

      Hooray for reading!

      --
      this is my sig
  39. Just download the Codec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Codec itself is always free, you only have to deal with adware or paying money when you want to use their encoder/player software.

    I never download anything but the free codec and use VirtualDub (www.virtualdub.org) for my encoding.

  40. Interesting by markclong · · Score: 1

    I installed the Dix codec the other day and found I had Gator installed on my laptop. I had installed only Visual Studio, Office, email, and other well known applications on a clean XP install. I was surprised to find Gator. This makes think it was the Divx codec that installed Gator like I suspected.

    I went to Lava Soft to get ad aware. I removed Gator no problem. Also check, if you're using Windows, msconfig to see what is starting.

  41. Ffdshow by CaptainMunchies · · Score: 1

    The submitter's comment that you have to download their adware to view the movies encoded in DivX isn't entirely accurate. DivX and a few other video codecs (including Xvid) generate MPEG-4 compliant video streams. Ffdshow is a DirectShow filter that can process any MPEG-4 stream for display (it cannot, however, be used for encoding).

    Happy viewing your Fair Use movies!

    --
    Spam removed for the Internet's pleasure ...
  42. 3ivx by jest3r · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Most of the Movies I have downloaded recently use the 3ivx codec http://www.3ivx.com/

    Not sure if its any better than DiVX but it doesnt look any worse ...

    1. Re:3ivx by Forgotten · · Score: 1

      3ivx has always handled Divx-encoded movies, at least on the Mac. The only thing I use the Divx codec for is the AVI importer, which fixes a Quicktime issue in playing back AVIs with MP3 soundtracks. But 3ivx does the actual video decoding. The only thing it doesn't do quite as well as the Divx codec is scale some older Divx-3 movies. To accomplish this setup I simply have both the 3ivx and Divx components installed. 3ivx catches all the content, presumably because it comes alphabetically first, and it's registered for all the same encoding types.

      The Windows media architecture is a bit different from Quicktime so it might not work there, but you can always try doing the same thing - either install both, or just install 3ivx.

      btw ffmpeg is another codec that can handle much of the same content as Divx. I don't use it much any more, but not because there's actually anything wrong with it. I think it might be what's built in to VLC for this type of media, and the playback quality there is the same as from the Quicktime codec(s).

    2. Re:3ivx by jest3r · · Score: 1

      I use OS X and usually have to use the 3ivx DiVX Doctor II utitlity to convert DiVX audio to something that Quicktime can handle .. works well .. especially when I plug the PowerBook into my TV :-)

      I havn't quite figured out how to view an SVCD with OS X yet .. I tried the VLC software but it seems to choke on anything MPEG2 ... Toast seems to be able to mount the BIN/CUE files ok though ... any ideas?

    3. Re:3ivx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Install the DivX 5.0.6 Quicktime component and you won't have to mess with DivX Doctor II (or DivX Validator) again. As the parent post indicates, you can do this and still use 3ivx to watch the movie. When you Get Info fro mQuicktime player you'll see "DivX AVI Importer" or somthing like that.

      VLC handles SVCD discs fine for me. I haven't tried with disc images or the raw files but it should still work. Are you using VLC v.60?

  43. Ogg Theora...not quite ready for prime time by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 2, Informative

    From their faq:

    Q: This is great. When will it all be finished so I can use it right now, like this minute? Please?

    A: Ogg Theora was scheduled to go Beta (that means the bitstream is locked down, and all features are represented) in March of 2003. Obviously, that's slipped. Alpha 2 is going to be released shortly; but please remember that until Beta, there is no promise that files you encode will be supported in the final release.

    Q: Can I use Theora to encode stuff right now?

    A: Yes, but we strongly, strongly recommend against it, for anything but test-cases. This is not a full release in any sense of the word, it is simply a milestone, and if you start encoding things right away, there's a really good chance that it will break when you try to play it with tools we release when the final version is released.

    1. Re:Ogg Theora...not quite ready for prime time by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, this irks the heck out of me. The FAQ also solicits outside developers to "hack away" and help get it ready...but with Xiph's continuing silence on the project and a lack of documentation, nobody but Xiph can really contribute anything...

      All is not lost, though - Dan Miller has actually been actively working on specifications for the Theora codec and such, and there has been a LITTLE work that's shown up in CVS since the Alpha 2 release. Just nothing real recent.

      It sounds as though all that's REALLY left to reach Beta (at which point the API should be standardized and 'outsiders' will be able to effectively use Ogg Theora) is agreement on a couple of aspects of the container format, if Xiph ever gets around to finishing that. You can see the details of what's left HERE. That page is guessing "August" for the beta. Hey, they've still got 10 days, they MIGHT make it...

      A couple of other points:

      • MPlayer, in traditional 'play everything' fashion, now has current working support for the current Theora CVS version in its own CVS - files encoded with the example_encoder program included in the Theora CVS sources play back fine on the code in MPlayer's CVS
      • In my experience, Ogg Theora looks really promising - the quality (to my eye, anyway) looks at least as good as mpeg4. It seems to become 'blurry' rather than 'blocky' at lower bitrates, which in my opinion doesn't look as bad. The example encoder is completely unoptimized, so it's very slow, but it does work.
      • There is now also apparently a windows-compatible example playback program included in Theora CVS called 'splayer'. You'll need a package called 'portaudio' to run it.
      So, in short, it's going to take some attention from Xiph to get it done, which may take a while, but it IS in a state where it can be productively 'played with'. Perhaps more people playing with it would encourage more developer attention on it from Xiph and associates...
  44. vlc? by 5n3ak3rp1mp · · Score: 1

    What exactly will this mean for open-source video player vlc? Looking for Mac or PC support, or a web/database developer, in the NYC area?

  45. Replace divx with ffdshow by Roached · · Score: 1

    I use ffdshow to view all my divx/xvid movies (under windows). It's free (no strings), faster, and supports multiple codecs. Of course for Linux, mplayer is the obvious solution.

  46. Oh dear by flibble-san · · Score: 1

    Don't Slashdot staff check out news before it's posted? The original submitter must really feel stupid now since the free (no-adware) codec is still available and right there on the page!

    --
    My other sig is crap too
    1. Re:Oh dear by nonmaskable · · Score: 1

      "Timothy" is the same slashdot editor that posted the "Decipher" book review that turned out to be a lame retelling of the book, ending and all.

  47. Well... if it's true by ktulu1115 · · Score: 1

    Well... I'm hearing conflicting information, but if this is true... Congradulations DivX, you have just sunk your own battleship.

    --
    # fuser -v /dev/attention | grep work
    #
  48. XVID by OppressiveGiant · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've not seen Ogg Theora in action, but I have seen xvid do wonders. I'm sure there are many other options.

    The problem is just getting people encoding the video to realize what a pain in the ass it will be for the end user to view the video they are encoding. If they've been using divX, they're going to continue to do so especially if they've actually purchased the software.

    --
    i could not think of anything clever.
  49. typical slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    it's amazing that not even the submitter reads the article. At least he mentioned an open source project to get posted.

    Way to go slashdot!

    1. Re:typical slashdot by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 4, Funny
      "it's amazing that not even the submitter reads the article. At least he mentioned an open source project to get posted."

      Lack of uality control is one of the pillars of slashdot.

    2. Re:typical slashdot by Art+Tatum · · Score: 3, Funny
      Lack of quality control is one of the pillars of slashdot.

      I'm not so sure about that. I mean, how much quality have *you* seen roaming around here unfettered?

    3. Re:typical slashdot by the_bahua · · Score: 1

      He didn't mention one. Timothy did.

    4. Re:typical slashdot by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

      If you are going to quote somebody, use copy/paste. Otherwise, your brain's internal filter silently "fixes" the text, adding a letter q that wasn't in the original, thus missing out on a fairly funny Dilbert reference. The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter Q into a privet bush.

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
    5. Re:typical slashdot by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1

      Actually, I did copy+paste. I corrected his typo on purpose because I didn't want to distract the fine readers from my own brilliant humorous commentary. But you're right--there are plenty of possiblities here. It's just one of those value judgements you have to make sometimes.

  50. Good business plan :-/ by netdemonboberb · · Score: 1

    They hooked people, and then decided to start making a profit. People: Convert all your Divx movies to another format and never look back. This kind of thing should not be tolerated!

    I look forward to some hacks removing the adware requirements from the codecs, or 3rd party codecs. I hope someone has the guts to do it.

    --

    Volunteer Mozilla developer, RPI Student.
    1. Re:Good business plan :-/ by thebatlab · · Score: 2, Funny

      Some hacks? It's not that hard to remove the adware for even an average computer user who understand the whole "executables" deal. To completely remove it, I believe it requires mucking in the registry but if the program isn't "there" when windows tries to "run" it, then it won't get "run"

      Unless of course there is some reason that this is a smarter-than-average adware thing (oxymoron??) in which case when you try to delete it it causes the Y2K bug to be summoned out of hibernation and bitch slap you.

      Either way...might as well give it a shot.

    2. Re:Good business plan :-/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Click the link, and then moderate yourself to "-1, Wrong."

      Have a nice day. :D

  51. Doesn't someone moderate this stuff by PaK_Phoenix · · Score: 1

    Isn't SOMEBODY supposed to check the articles, before they are posted to the front page?

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:Doesn't someone moderate this stuff by Jack+Comics · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You're new here, aren't you?

      --
      "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
  52. Not exactly by CaptBubba · · Score: 1

    They "hid" the link for free divx in plain sight.

    on
    http://www.divx.com/divx/
    under the links to purchase or download ad stuff, there is a big link that says "Download the DivX codec (no cost)" which allows you to download the codec...for free!

    easy enough to do.

  53. Divx now AdAware supported by gregmac · · Score: 1
    ..is what I read that title as. Apparently, that actually IS the case now.

    after installing divx..

    --
    Speak before you think
  54. It's still available, just not well featured... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check the link below the 3 main choices - called "Download the DivX codec (no cost)". That takes you to the following URL:

    http://download.divx.com/divx/DivX505Bundle.exe

    You can still get the non-ad version, they just made it easy for people to think they have to pay for it or get the ad-ware versions.

    Cheers

  55. Uhmmm, Project Mayo is still free... by dr4ma · · Score: 1

    Take a look at http://www.projectmayo.com/, their codec is multplatform and is free.

    --
    Privacy? Not in this lifetime.
    1. Re:Uhmmm, Project Mayo is still free... by vincent99 · · Score: 1

      Uhmmm, and only abandoned for 2 years.

      --
      -- V
  56. Re:Well... if it's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check it yourself, you obviously have a web browser...

  57. What's with the screwy names? by avalys · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why do the Ogg people keep coming up with such stupid names? Ogg Theora? It sounds like a female character from a bad Star Trek movie. Ogg Vorbis would be her husband.

    I mean seriously, what sounds more professional when you're proposing something to your manager: "We should use Ogg Vorbis!", or "We should use MPEG Layer 3". I know which one I'd rather be saying to my boss.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:What's with the screwy names? by Jaeger · · Score: 5, Informative

      Read the FAQ. If you're too lazy to click:

      Q: Why the name 'Theora?'

      A: Like other Xiph.org Foundation codec projects such as Vorbis or Tarkin, Theora is named after a fictional character. Theora Jones was the name of Edison Carter's 'controller' on the television series Max Headroom. She was played by Amanda Pays.

    2. Re:What's with the screwy names? by (void*) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's with this thing call "professionalism", that you think MPEG sounds professional? The software is free, the naming is quaint? So?

    3. Re:What's with the screwy names? by LittleGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why do the Ogg people keep coming up with such stupid names? Ogg Theora? It sounds like a female character from a bad Star Trek movie.

      Substitute 'recent' for superflous adjective in bold...

      I mean seriously, what sounds more professional when you're proposing something to your manager: "We should use Ogg Vorbis!"

      'Ogg Vorbis!' sounds like the exclamation of a Medieval SysAdmin from the Canterbury Tales....

      --
      Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
    4. Re:What's with the screwy names? by shibashaba · · Score: 1

      I suggest that everyone who has a problem with the name of an opensource project immediately fork it so that you can make up your own name for it.

      --
      ---------- Open Source is capitalism applied to IP.
    5. Re:What's with the screwy names? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Or we could just start calling it something else. If enough people call it something else, the silly names will be soon forgotten.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    6. Re:What's with the screwy names? by Giant+Killer · · Score: 1

      Yes, it sounds so childish - Moving Picture Expert Group. Certainly not professional-sounding.

      I mean seriously, it really does sound unappealing. Ogg theora? It has no meaning to me, and conjures no emotion whatsoever, except perhaps as something a caveman might grunt.

      In contrast, the new viagra replacement "Levitra" does a very nice job conjuring a response.

    7. Re:What's with the screwy names? by glsunder · · Score: 1

      er, "Theora is named after a fictional character... on... Max Headroom" kind of proves his point. It doesn't bother me, but I can see it commanding less respect from PHBs.

    8. Re:What's with the screwy names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Following in the noble tradition on naming features after incredibly hot women, such as the THURMAN switch on Process Software's PMDF (blame Penn Gilette).

    9. Re:What's with the screwy names? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      They shoulda just called it Ogg Amanda. :)

    10. Re:What's with the screwy names? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Read the FAQ. If you're too lazy to click:

      Except it doesn't answer his real question. Why do they pick stupid and childish sounding names, instead of something that might appeal to the business community. Someone whos favour they need to win if they wish for this to become more than an amusing way to kill weekends.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    11. Re:What's with the screwy names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also look up what "Theora" means. It means "something observed."

    12. Re:What's with the screwy names? by lostchicken · · Score: 1

      ...Why do they pick stupid and childish sounding names...Use Nullsofts NSIS installer...

      Wow! That's a shitload of irony. I think "Nullsoft SuperPimp Install System" is about the most childish name ever.

      --
      -twb
    13. Re:What's with the screwy names? by Cyno · · Score: 1

      Why do the Ogg people keep coming up with such stupid names?

      Maybe to avoid trademarks, lawsuits, loss of money, freedom, etc. Its difficult to choose a name someone doesn't claim ownership to these days, unless its stupid or silly or..

      Why can't we just deal with the fact that there are 6 billion people in the world and only 3 billions different names? I don't know, I just come up with these weird unprovable facts.

    14. Re:What's with the screwy names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It doesn't bother me, but I can see it commanding less respect from PHBs.

      Less than DivX or MPEG? PHBs only know what trade rags tell them. Usually they're given just enough rope to strangle themselves, trip and catch hold of the red button and cause the power to go off.

    15. Re:What's with the screwy names? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Wow! That's a shitload of irony. I think "Nullsoft SuperPimp Install System" is about the most childish name ever.

      Yeah, but I didn't name it.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    16. Re:What's with the screwy names? by gnuguru · · Score: 1

      I know which one I'd rather listen to.

      Vorbis rocks.

    17. Re:What's with the screwy names? by uberdood · · Score: 1

      Theora? It sounds like a female character from a bad Star Trek movie.

      Boy are they going to make fun of YOU for not knowing your TV lore.

      --
      "Population 1,656"
    18. Re:What's with the screwy names? by chthonicdaemon · · Score: 1

      Why not? I think it's pretty sad the way a lot of people seem to think that all open source projects must have a commercial spin, because that's what will speed adoption. I mean, have you heard of a company called 'Nullsoft'? How strange is that? They'll probably never get anyone to use that free 'Winamp' player they make.

      The point of Free Software has never been to 'take over the world', just to provide an alternative. Wacky names are part of the lore (GNU/HURD -- double recursive acronym, come on!). A lot of us find it appealing, and don't particularly care that not many people use it. If it is better, it will get used anyway, regardless of what it is called.

      --
      Languages aren't inherently fast -- implementations are efficient
    19. Re:What's with the screwy names? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they should use grown up, serious names. Who needs creativity and individuality? They should just call it Video 3.0, powered by Container 1.0, with Audio 1.0.

    20. Re:What's with the screwy names? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Hm.. based on that reply, what would you know about creativity? ;)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    21. Re:What's with the screwy names? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Nothing! Absolutely nothing! Stupid! I'm so stupid.

  58. Seriously Guys by 222 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean, it would take 3 seconds to check the validity of this! I can't believe crap like this gets through, and stories that are actually worth reading are rejected over and over again. I know its horribly off topic, but I only wish everyone would make their PHB's read the link.

    1. Re:Seriously Guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..and how exactly is that tripe newsworthy?

      You worthlesss piece of shit.

    2. Re:Seriously Guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheeit, anyone with a guitar knows Ernie Ball strings are top-of-the-line. And not one of them gives a fuck what OS they use in accounting.

      Oh shit, Gibson uses Windows? Well time to throw out this Les Paul.

    3. Re:Seriously Guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting link. I'd give you +1 informative, but I'm all out of mod points.

  59. Re:Redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bogomip bandit does not have a keen eye for detail. Neither does Timothy for that matter. Jesus, how hard is it to read a webpage and find the link that says "Free codec download" or somesuch. I downloaded dvix the other day. I'll take Taco's spelling errors over Timothy's blatent lies any day.

  60. Way to fact check by stratjakt · · Score: 1

    They just changed the page layout, as many have pointed out.

    So lets all just say stupid shit about SCO and M$ and see if we can get some cheap karma.

    SCO and M$ are both gay! They are teh suck! Alan Cox will come back stronger than ever and smote them both with his super management abilities!

    I think vi is pretty good for doing some stuff but I really like emacs! And KDE and Gnobe and blah blah

    Oh yeah, I love my iPod, I think everyone should spend 500 bucks on a 50 dollar mp3 player.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  61. Get the k-lite codec pack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This whole story is bullshit, but I like the codec packs that give you a bunch tools in a compact package. I like the k-lite codec pack. Do a google seach. It includes divx amongst many others like xvid. You can select the codecs you want installed. Also includes bsplayer to play subtitled movies etc.

  62. FFDShow Filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://cutka.szm.sk/ffdshow/index.html

    I have been using the ffdshow filter for DivX and Xvid movies for quite sometime. You cant encode to DivX with it, but it offers fully functional playback support.

    Ive personally found it to be better to use Xvid for encoding files, but many things I download are still DivX (Matrix Reloaded DVDRip for example). With the ffdshow filter, you dont have to worry about adware, sorta negating "This means even to just watch divx movies and not do any actual enncoding, one has to install adware on their machine. I for one will be finding a different video codec."

  63. 3.11 Anyone ;) by Shockmaster · · Score: 1

    I never did like this DivX Pro nonsense. Am I the only one to never make the jump from 3.11 ;) to 5.0? I tried installing it once on a new system but hated all the crap that came bundled with it as well as the idea to pay for it. AFAIK, (which in this area, admittedly isn't far) I still haven't found any files that I couldn't play. There are however alternatives. The Kazaa Lite codec pack is a good place to start, and it even included software to play Quicktime and RealMedia files without the attrocious software they come bundled with. Combine that with Media Player Classic and you have a robust, fully functional, and FREE media player under Windows, without the extra crap you don't need anyway!

    --

    ---
    Take it sleazy,
    -The Shockmaster

    1. Re:3.11 Anyone ;) by vincent99 · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are the only one still using an archaic hacked half-assed MS implementation of MPEG-4v1.

      --
      -- V
  64. Anyone know? by whoda · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How can I use my mod points to rate this entire article 'WRONG'? :)

    1. Re:Anyone know? by CaptainBaz · · Score: 1

      You can't - they were sacrificed when you posted :-P

    2. Re:Anyone know? by glenrm · · Score: 1

      Now that is a good idea, why not have points that allow people to remove or add stories to the front page. The threshold could be quite high and the editor could by UserModerated or something like that. If you had mod points you could choose to review all of the articles that have been submitted if you so wish.

    3. Re:Anyone know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      easy there, buddy. the slashdot editors are doing us a service by maintaining this website. hey, it's not like they're sitting around getting paid to do this.

      oh, wait a minute...

    4. Re:Anyone know? by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      And they do such a great job, making sure we don't get duplicated stories... Oh... or stories that are just out right wrong... Oh...

      Well, ok, they generally try, and I'm sure they do kill the 100+ dups that are there, even when they do let the occational 5 dups go through for the same story.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    5. Re:Anyone know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick! Pay the subscription fee so you can be misinformed before anyone else!

    6. Re:Anyone know? by chthonicdaemon · · Score: 1

      Of course, by posting this question, you can't mod anything on this topic...

      --
      Languages aren't inherently fast -- implementations are efficient
  65. Uhm, it's MPEG4.. by flocto · · Score: 5, Informative

    DivX 4/5 ist MPEG4 compliant, so you don't need the DivX 5 decoder to watch an MPEG4 stream whose creator happened to use the DivX 5 encoder..

    1. Re:Uhm, it's MPEG4.. by delus10n0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unless the person who encoded the DiVX5 file decided to not use a MPEG4 profile and activate some of the DiVX-only features, such as GMC (Global Motion Compensation) or quarter-pel. Then you're pretty much screwed.

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
    2. Re:Uhm, it's MPEG4.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DivX 4/5 ist MPEG4 compliant, so you don't need the DivX 5 decoder to watch an MPEG4 stream whose creator happened to use the DivX 5 encoder..

      That would be nice, wouldn't it. Except that MPEG4 compatability is OPTIONAL, and usually turned off in favor of enabling DivX's more advanced features. Likewise for 3viX, XviD, and a half dozen other "MPEG4 compliant" codecs -- they should work together, but don't.

    3. Re:Uhm, it's MPEG4.. by tangent3 · · Score: 1

      GMC and Qpel are part of the MPEG4 Advanced Simple Profile.

  66. Not a bad business model, actually... by DaveJay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's an interesting idea.

    First, you get the early adopter types to use it and spread it around by offering it for free. These same people start using it to encode movies, because they're techy types.

    Once it hits the mainstream, offer multiple versions -- free, so that techies can still get it and propogate it, and ad-supported, so that nontechs who want the "extra" (ie useless) features will watch the ads.

    Eventually it becomes so common within the mainstream community that you feel you can lose the free version -- the techies will move on to something else, or keep using their old free version, but the established mainstream use will keep growing -- and so will the ad revenue.

    I don't LIKE it, but it certainly seems to have worked. Imagine how difficult it will be to wean our nontechnical family members to a new codec... "But you said DivX was better than all the others, and I don't care about the ads!"

    1. Re:Not a bad business model, actually... by sweetooth · · Score: 1

      That would matter if they actually stopped giving away the free codec. Which they didn't.

    2. Re:Not a bad business model, actually... by DaveJay · · Score: 1

      Acknowledged, although it still stands as an example of "not a bad business model". :)

    3. Re:Not a bad business model, actually... by sweetooth · · Score: 1

      Agreed. This type of action is also commonly used in the argument against closed source/proprietary software. What do you do when the vendor increases the price? Or worse, stops developing one product in favor of another? Or changes formats and breaks compatability?

    4. Re:Not a bad business model, actually... by sahonen · · Score: 1

      You mean like Fraunhofer charging for implementing MP3 in commercial software and charging for MP3 streams?

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
  67. YHBT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the worst article ever.

    1. Re:YHBT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      evar

  68. bullshit: free codec is still there ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its there on the page u fools

    Download the DivX codec (no cost)
    links to

    http://download.divx.com/divx/DivX505Bundle.exe


    what kinda moron submitted AND accepted this story into slashdot

    ---

    slashdot gettin worse by every story

  69. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  70. ogg and divx are diffrent codecs by postworek · · Score: 1, Informative

    Ogg is for audio and Divx is for video compression. You can use all of them together. If you are searching for an alternative for compressin your video try xvid. Don't make chaos in video compression, use standard tools, please. (I hate to download movies and must to install new codec to my system just to watch one short film)

    1. Re:ogg and divx are diffrent codecs by vjzuylen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Small correction: Vorbis is for audio, Ogg is the moniker for a suite of codecs from Xiph, including video and speech-specific compression.

      --

      Hee-hee. Dying tickles!
    2. Re:ogg and divx are diffrent codecs by ironhide · · Score: 1

      ogg is not necessarily for audio, while ogg vorbis is. there also is ogg speex (speech audio codec) and ogg tarkin (video codec). what is referred to is ogg tarkin, not ogg vorbis.

    3. Re:ogg and divx are diffrent codecs by jpmorgan · · Score: 1
      Small correction to your small correction: Ogg is the file format, Vorbis is the codec.

      Other examples: Avi is the file format, DivX is the codec. Quicktime Mov is the file format, Sorenson is the codec.

  71. So fickle by essdodson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So something is good until someone starts trying to recoup the costs of their investments? Come on folks, get real. Codec development is costly, in addition, so is having it downloaded by millions. Perhaps if more people were willing to give back to projects they wouldn't be forced to do such.

    --
    scott
  72. Real player anyone? by zutronics · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This reminds me of the real player. http://www.real.com/ - It's fun to watch someone find the real player. It's even more fun to watch that person get absolutely infuriated as the real player sets itself to load during startup and just be a general pain in the ass. Fun times.

    --
    no alarms and no surprises, please.
    1. Re:Real player anyone? by ironhide · · Score: 1

      someone over at doom9 wrote a directshow filter for realmedia so you can play it in mediaplayer or any other directshow app.

  73. Re:Redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if I had used "Funny" as the subject line would I have gotten moderated as funny? Probably so. I just used Redundant because every post in this thread is the same thing, because the whole article is bogus.

    Posting AC because I feel like it, bitches.

  74. who cares about divx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares about divx these days anyway? Most of the content is released in xvid. Haven't seen divx releases lately. Besides, xvid is mpeg4 compliant.

  75. Dear Slashdot Editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I have a bridge for sale at bargain prices.

  76. -1 TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dang, why can't the editors actually check the websites of submissions???

  77. ITS STILL HREE..... Get a clue.... by ELiTeUI · · Score: 1, Redundant
    There is still a BIG LINK IN BOLD that says "Download the DivX codec (no cost)" right below all the download options.

    It looks a lot like this: Download the DivX codec (no cost)

    Whoever submitted this story should be shot, along with the Slashbots, who are obviously not doing their jobs.

    ELiTeUI

  78. Does anyone understand the last sentence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does "look curiously" mean?

  79. Or even better... by error502 · · Score: 1

    Why not just use mplayer?

    1. Re:Or even better... by justMichael · · Score: 1

      I went and played around with MPlayer OS X, it seems to do a quality job. I will reserve judgment until I can give it some more time.

  80. Doesn't work by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    I tried that and it decided to stop working because I didn't have Gator or whatever installed.

    Ben

    1. Re:Doesn't work by mrseigen · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've had CuteFTP stop working on me because AdAware took out one of its "Adware" DLLs.

  81. ITS STILL FREE..... Get a clue.... by ELiTeUI · · Score: 1
    not HREE as in the previous title.

    ELiTeUI

  82. How to get around the Adware by Izago909 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You need to have a compiler that can make DLL's. Just create a program that exits as soon at it starts. Run adaware and compile it to a DLL. Copy and rename it to the ones adaware just removed. I can only get it to work with the decoder only. It won't work if you want to encode video.

    1. Re:How to get around the Adware by cK-Gunslinger · · Score: 1

      Ok. But what happens when the software tries to make a function call to the dll and can't find the correct method name? Doesn't it crash? Do you know all the dll's internal function names?

    2. Re:How to get around the Adware by Izago909 · · Score: 1

      That's probably why it won't encode. Decoding probably only calls a function or sub without need anything returned.

    3. Re:How to get around the Adware by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      To get around Adware, go to www.zonelabs.com and download ZoneAlarm. Use it to block gain_trickler32.exe when it tries to reach the web. This stops it from downloading and displaying ads because it thinks that I never go online.

      Or you can go to www.doom9.org and find out which registry keys to delete to use the Divx 5.02 Pro version without paying. The latter versions were not susceptible to the registry tampering but still falls for the "Damn, this guy never goes online" fix. The doom9 site isn't up right now but wait for it.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    4. Re:How to get around the Adware by Izago909 · · Score: 1

      That still leaves the adware on your computer. Most people like myself don't care if it can reach the internet or not, any good firewall will ask anyway. We don't want it on our system out of principal. Privacy and system resources are secondary concerns.

  83. Re:My Linux Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hopefully it won't completely suck

    hehe u r 1 optimistic mon

  84. Agreed.. by msimm · · Score: 1

    Self limiting. Its like you have the wonderfull product and you really want people to use it, but you give it an unfortunate name (Le Mans) and it flops. I doesn't matter that the name has nothing to do with the quality of the technology, it just wont get used. Seems like if the name is trivial then renaming it should the next issue (suggestions and voting on Slashdot!).

    --
    Quack, quack.
  85. CODEC converters by phorm · · Score: 1

    One question I've had for awhile. Does anyone know a good program to convert between the various Codecs? I've got a lot of AVI files that until recently were converted fine to Mpeg-1 (.mpg) for VCD burning. Now, the recent files seem to either have small flaws or a slight variation on the codec, so that my converter cannot grab audio and misreads the end of file (making files 2-3x the proper length).

    Heck, if the tools at divx.com actually work properly to do this, I might just buy 'em. Otherwise, though, a cheaper/OS/free solution would be appreciated.

  86. These guys are idiots by Backov · · Score: 1

    I met a sales exec for these guys at Internext in Florida at the beginning of august.

    Keep in mind that he's at an internet porn convention..

    Now, his spiel is that we should use DivX on all of our sites because it is "better" than WMV, and that they have an installed base of 80 million users. (He justified that by saying they have 80 million downloads.)

    I said, sorry, as a paysite guy, WMV and MPG1 are good enough, and without an auto-codec download with WMP, DivX would never fly as a replacement.

    I asked him why we would ever want to reencode all of our video in an additional format that has no benefits over WMV or MPG1. His answer was that it is "free" - I begin to think he is on crack.

    He then goes on to tell me how DivX is the most popular format on Kazaa. (The place where we get our content pirated on)...

    Then, after pressing, he admits this little gem:

    "I'm sorry, we don't actually license our codec to the adult industry."

    I'm sorry, WTF are you doing here again?

    "So you'll give it to the people who pirate our content, but you won't license it to the content producers?"

    "Yes."

    You fucking moron. Expect DivX on fuckedcompany very soon, if it's not already there.

    --
    In the law there is no overlap between theft and copyright infringement whatsoever.
  87. Kill Timothy! by nonmaskable · · Score: 2

    First he was responsible for the Decipher "book review" (where the reviewer gave away the whole story) and now this completely incorrect article.

    Isn't anybody in the Slashdot ruling class paying attention to this crap!?!?!?

  88. We need the ability to mod the STORIES by Atario · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Am I right, here, people? Back me up, hah?

    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    1. Re:We need the ability to mod the STORIES by lysander · · Score: 1
      Actually, if article moderation were linked into the friends/foes ratings, then this might actually be very cool.

      E.g. everyone who wants to can moderate the article, and have users (with accounts) get a score based on what their friends and foes thought of it.

      --
      GET YOUR WEAPONS READY! --DR.LIGHT
    2. Re:We need the ability to mod the STORIES by Gherald · · Score: 1

      Yes yes, exactly! Someone w/Perl knowledge please submit a patch for this.

      Or maybe I'll just learn the language myself if no one else volunteers... :P

    3. Re:We need the ability to mod the STORIES by Gherald · · Score: 1

      Nah, each man for himself. I would think a simple X out of 5 star rating system per story per UID (only the oldest 92.5%) would suffice.

    4. Re:We need the ability to mod the STORIES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about just checking the number of replies?

    5. Re:We need the ability to mod the STORIES by Gherald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hardly indicative. The point is to be able to send a message that the story sucks.

    6. Re:We need the ability to mod the STORIES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great - then we would have an empty front page.

  89. Re:Use FFDSHOW, it's open source. by Sancho · · Score: 1

    Excellent filter for decoding movies, but it has no encoding capabilities. As much as I like DVD, DivX gives me more bang for my buck when it comes to encoding home movies, captured TV shows for archival, etc.

    I suggest the XVid codec for this. Ogg just isn't there yet.

  90. windows media player? by golgotha007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ok, here's a rant; mod be into oblivion if you like, but i think some users will agree with me here.

    windows media player seemed to be the best player for all kinds of video content while any linux player was, well lacking, mainly with codec support. i remember when windows media player would auto-download a codec and everything worked great.

    lately, i'm having a hard time playing many video files in windows media player and the auto-download codec thingie is a freakin joke. i don't know how many different codec installers i've been thru trying to make sure all codecs are covered (god knows how much adaware software has been deployed on my xp machine in the process).

    frustrated, i've turned to linux for video viewing. i installed mplayer with the gmplayer front end and the w32 codec file.

    now, i can play any codec thrown at me. quicktime? windows formats? no problem.

    also, there's no better satisfaction then when my friends say to me, 'hey, i can't seem to play this video file you gave me.. how did you see it?'

    'with linux.' (did their job just drop? yep, it sure did!)

    1. Re:windows media player? by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      'with linux.' (did their job just drop? yep, it sure did!)

      They lost their jobs because you watch porn with linux?

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:windows media player? by benzapp · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just go with Windows Media Player and Windows Media Video for most tasks, it is just so much easier.

      A few months ago I got an AIW9700Pro and started using it to record TV shows while I was out. For whatever reason, I downloaded the Windows Media Encoder to encode the MPG output... Turns out the quality is pretty damn good, better than DivX I think maybe slightly better than Xvid. Windows Media Encoder also compresses video to PocketPC size perfectly... People laugh, but I think its damn cool watching TV shows on your PDA. I am a pretty busy person, and I just don't have the time to watch TV at home. If I have time after work, I will spend it at a bar. But, I spend 45 minutes each way commuting... Perfect for a recorded TV show.

      Now, I compress everything into WMV. It works, and I can play them in Windows Media Player using many of its cool features such as volume levelling and playback speed adjustment.

      And as you mention, everyone can play it... Including your computer illiterate friends.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    3. Re:windows media player? by jea6 · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is that you are satisfied in giving things to people that they can't use?

      "Hey guys I have this video I'd like you to watch!"

      "Umm, it didn't work"

      "Well, too bad."

      Niiice, real friendly too.

      Why don't you keep your videos to yourself, then? Nothing like a pretentious Linux user to get me to want to use Linux.

      Did I see your jaw drop? Guess not.

      --

      sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
    4. Re:windows media player? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      > Just go with Windows Media Player and Windows Media Video for most tasks, it is just so much easier.

      Does noone remember Yoda's warning about some things being faster and easier? Yeesh. C'mon, geeks, get with it! They don't call it the 'dark' side because it's easy to accessorize, ya know.

    5. Re:windows media player? by Otter · · Score: 1
      ok, here's a rant; mod be into oblivion if you like, but i think some users will agree with me here.

      Agree or disagree, one can't help but admire your courage: "Windows sucks! Linux rules! Mod me down if you must!"

      If you'd thrown in a line about paying $699 to SCO, you could start carting around videos comparing yourself to Gandhi and Martin Luther King, like the Dixie Chicks are now doing.

      (Hmmm, that came off harsher than I intended -- I just got a laugh out of that "mod me into oblivion but I like Linux". ;-) )

    6. Re:windows media player? by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Back when I had a PC, I was primarily a windows user but switched to linux for porn viewing.

      So I'm trying to say I'm in perfect agreement.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    7. Re:windows media player? by Bueller_007 · · Score: 1

      Install the k-lite codec pack. http://www.k-lite.tk

    8. Re:windows media player? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, how does one mod "-5 astroturf"??? I mean, read this posting: does this SOUND like a slashdotter, or a marketing copywriter?

    9. Re:windows media player? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Putting DRM, the fact that you have to use Windows to use it, and the fact that some of them can launch IE aside - the Microsoft Windows codecs are not that bad. You can get decent video in a decent amount of space, and the player is pretty simple and fast. Also, with .wmv I know what I'm getting, whereas .mpg and especially .avi I have no idea how those files are encoded. WMP is certainly better than Realplayer and Quicktime (for Windows). Plus, you can pass around Windows video files to your non-technical friends and they can play them without having to do any tinkering.

    10. Re:windows media player? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      > Putting DRM, the fact that you have to use Windows to use it, and the fact that some of them can launch IE aside

      Yes, putting aside all the EVILNESS, Hitler wasn't a half-bad painter, either. You seem to be missing the point, young padawan.

      Evil is bad. It's just no darned good. Ya don't cotton to it. You need to smack it on the nose with the rolled-up newspaper of justice, and say, "Bad dog! Bad dog!" Or at least, that's what the Tick always says. That and something about gravity being a harsh mistress.

    11. Re:windows media player? by engine+matrix · · Score: 1

      I don't think he was being pretentious at all. He was explaining the joys of using Linux to play media files which I can agree with. If his friends can't play a media file that is definitely not his fault.

      It is also his right to gloat about being able to play any file in the universe because compiling MPlayer can be a task for Linux newbies. The fact that he is telling his friends about Linux is good for Linux adoption.

    12. Re:windows media player? by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 1
      MPlayer gearing up for native Windows release

      They aren't making a huge deal about it but this is big, big news. A free and Free player for every type of video, on Windows, that doesn't suck? It just might be the end of WMP/Real/Quicktime if they don't get their collective acts together and produce some quality software. (Quicktime is actually a pretty good player, but it still sucks compared to MPlayer because it only plays quicktime files, and it has windows integration problems). They've even got open-source codecs for almost all of the things that used to require binary dll hacks of questionable legality (Sorenson). I think MPlayer is ready to take the Windows world by storm. All they need is a little improvement on the interface and an easy installer (browser plugin would be nice too). Real, in particular, should be shaking in their boots.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    13. Re:windows media player? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'with linux.' (did their job just drop? yep, it sure did!)

      Maybe they're just amazed that someone would put video codecs in a kernel.

    14. Re:windows media player? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that unlikley these days on slashdot. I don't think even half they people here use Linux anymore, and the influx of Windows users long ago gained moderator privlidges. A lot of them are just as zelous and close minded as the old M$ SUX Linux RUL#EZ sterotype. Heck, I was modded down once for saying Windows98 was unstable.

    15. Re:windows media player? by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      A bias note: I use %100 Linux now, but I used to use mostly Windows.

      If you run Windows, and you are still using MS Media Player, then you are living under a rock! The absolute hands down best media player that I have ever used... yes it is even better than a tweaked mplayer setup, is "Media Player Classic".

      Media Player Classic is a movie player for Linux that resembles the old MS Windows Media Player 6.x players. Yeah the great ones you remember that autodownloaded codecs and had a nice simple yet fuctional GUI.
      Media Player Classic can play _every_ video format. You have to have the codecs installed of course, but you can play Quicktime and Real Media videos without firing up their respective crappy players.
      Media Player Classic. Tell your friends, download it, use it yourself. WHy are you waiting. Seriously! You will NOT regret switching.

      Mplayer is the second best movie player, and it should look to Media Player Classic for ideas. Anyway I use Linux, so I use Mplayer, but if I used windows, it would be Media Player Classic all the way!

      Finally, note that the official Media Player Classic site is down or moved or something. I liked to a trustable source to download the application... but I think that the link is a version or two behind the latest release. Shouldn't make much of a difference.

      To install just download and unzip into a new Program Files subdirectory, run the program and then go into the options or whatever its called. There is a setting that associates it with every video format. Then you can just double-click AVI, MOV, MPG, RM, etc files to play them. Its an option in there, just hunt for it.

      Media Player Classic is really fast. Damn I miss it.

    16. Re:windows media player? by tabdelgawad · · Score: 1

      [Quote]
      Finally, note that the official Media Player Classic site is down or moved or something. I liked to a trustable source to download the application
      [/Quote]

      Media Player Classic is a SourceForge project. Here's the SourceForge project page with links to the latest source and binaries:

      http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli/

      Also, I second the recommendation. MPC will play almost every video file out there (the only exception I can think of is the newest QuickTime mp4 format).

      --
      Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
    17. Re:windows media player? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent down

    18. Re:windows media player? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      How new do you mean? MPlayer handles most of the Quicktime files I throw at it, including ones with SVQ3, MPEG-4 Video, and AAC audio. Various other players have advantages over MPlayer (like a nicer GUIs), both on Windoze and *nix, but I end up using MPlayer all the time because I don't have to remember exactly which player works for which movie and I prefer using keys to control a player.

      I used to use about four players (Ogle, Realplayer, aviplay, and mtv), but now I only use one and can play Quicktime as well. Sometimes, I use Xine to play a DVD, since it has a superior GUI and DVD navigation. Xine has gained support for many formats and codecs, so it may now rival MPlayer in sheer movie playing ability. I don't think there are any Windows builds of it yet, though.

    19. Re:windows media player? by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      Why don't you keep your videos to yourself, then? Nothing like a pretentious Linux user to get me to want to use Linux.

      since i watch all my videos in linux, i don't know what works or doesn't work in windows media player.

      oh, and freakin relax!

    20. Re:windows media player? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The video codecs you have installed can be viewed and deleted. Go into control panel / sounds and audio devices (!) / Hardware (!) / scroll down to 'video codecs' and press 'properties', then 'properties' again. You should delete everything you've ever installed because codecs can interfere with each other (if they both claim the same fourcc code - and there's no way to tell media player which codec to use). This sucks when a codec doesn't work the way it claims to work. Then go grab the latest nimo codec pack (google), and install the most common codecs from that. Everything should work fine after that. Also, use Windows Media Player 6.04 - not 7, 8, 9. In 6.04 you can go into file/properties and actually see useful things like which codecs are being used to playback a certain file, and change the properties for that codec right there. Also get a fourcc reader/changer so you can see which codecs a video is supposed to be using or change it if necessary. You can run Media Player 6.04 by simply running 'mplayer2' instead of 'wmplayer'. The whole idea of codecs to play differently encoded media is so simple - I don't know why Microsoft has to hide everything, making it so hard when something goes wrong. Someone should write a windows codec manager which could give you info about installed codecs, let you disable and delete them, and tell you which fourcc values one takes over.

    21. Re:windows media player? by benzapp · · Score: 1

      no sense of humor...

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    22. Re:windows media player? by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      I have used both. Mplayer has trouble with some of the Real Media formats and some of the quicktime formats. It can play some, but others it fails to play the audio tracks in addition to the video.

      Also, Media Player Classic (aka MPC) has smoother more functional seeking, and compared to all of the skins and GUIs I have used for Mplayer, MPC still has a better more usable and more simple GUI. I hate fancy GUIs. I just want a basic functional GUI. Not this iMac-like candy crap.

      Mplayer comes close to MPC, but mainly it is stuff like seeking not being as smooth and precise as MPC.

    23. Re:windows media player? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Seeking is certainly a weak point of MPlayer. The GUI could be considered a weakness as well, but I don't even use it. If you've not gotten sound from some movies, you may be missing some codecs. Particularly, people often complain of missing audio in Quicktime movies, only to discover they don't have faad (AAC decoder) installed. I had to install it and rebuild MPlayer to get AAC sound. If you want to be able to play as much as possible, build MPlayer from CVS, since much development has happened since the last stable release.

      I think I've tried MPC, and I'd probably use it more if I ever booted into Windows. Does it run on Wine? I assume it would need the DirectShow framework, which may not be available.

    24. Re:windows media player? by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      After yet another Windows crash resulting in filesystem corruption, I switched 100% to Linux. I try to stay away from Wine as it typically requires using MS dlls. I am done with that company. Sorry.

      From what I understand, MPC could probably be made to work on Wine if you fucked with enough settings and leached the right DLLs from Windows. Thats the thing with Wine, if you are willing to screw around with settings, recompile the latest Wine or a previous one... just about anything can be made to work. MPC ain't that much better than Mplayer to warrent the effort.

      Supposedly the next version of Mplayer called M2 or whatever, is going to have greatly improved seeking... as well as improvements just about across the board. Mplayer is the future, in my opinion.

      Thanks for reminding me about the AAC codec. I installed it up here at work, but I think that I neglected to install it at home. Better make a mental note because I think you might be right about the Quicktime not having audio thing.

      I won't go as far as a recompile though. I like to only install software through apt-get. Keeps things clean on Redhat that way. Just installing the codec might be enough.

    25. Re:windows media player? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I don't think it would be worth it to try media players on Wine. There are various other Free Software players for *nix anyway, most notably Xine.

  91. In the immortal words of Emily Latilla... by artemis67 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Oh! Never mind...."

    1. Re:In the immortal words of Emily Latilla... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Errr, that's Emily Litella.

      Is there room for a Gilda Radner nazi?

  92. Gotta hand it to the editors by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This isn't a troll.....but I'm just sayin......ya gotta hand it to the editors to not even check the facts on something as major as this. The story is not ONLY completely wrong, because the free/ad free version is still available, but it also just is a lame attempt to grab eyeballs. I know I immediately checked this out when I read it, because it would have been devastating to my pr0n/anime/borrowed-from -MPAA-movie viewing habit. Seriously, the editors are getting more and more careless here....I hate to say it, but Slashdot is fast approaching the trustworthiness of the NY Times, and thats NOT a compliment.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:Gotta hand it to the editors by nothings · · Score: 1

      About 90% of the time that a story pisses me off with its irrelevance, poor summary, or just plain-wrongness, it was posted by timothy. Thus, it's not so much slashdot trustworthiness as timothy trustworthiness at issue. Your mileage may vary; try keepin your own stats.

  93. mplayer definitely better on OS X by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

    actually, mplayer on os x is the ONLY video player worth dealing with when it comes to anything besides quicktime and real. For sure, it's the way to go with DivX/Xvid/etc. avis. Oddly enough though, Mplayer 2 is slower than Mplayer 1, at least when it comes to my G3.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    1. Re:mplayer definitely better on OS X by ickoonite · · Score: 1

      Eugh! Mplayer on OS X? I have to say my experiences were not pleasant. It was slow and really not worth much time or effort.

      Personally, I (and all other Mac users I know) far prefer VLC - the VideoLAN player, which is unbloated, fast and pretty. It's also far more cross-platform (Win, Mac, BeOS, Linux, *BSD, amongst others) and actually possible to compile from source without setting aside a day to hack around. It also has the nifty feature of playing region-encumbered DVDs on different-region drives without any need for firmware programming or anything (certainly on Windows).

      YMMV, but mplayer, as is widely reported on the Internet, is murder to compile. In addition, the developers are unbearably arrogant and unhelpful (the fuss they made over GCC 2.96 springs to mind). I've also generally found it to have rather high CPU requirements - it is always bitching that my machines are too slow when other software is perfectly capable of playing the same file.

      But anyway, if you like MPlayer on OS X, I'd wager you'll love VLC.

      iqu :)

    2. Re:mplayer definitely better on OS X by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      My experience has been the opposite; MPlayer had some weird quirks on OS X when I tried it recently (like the video window actually being a separate app) while VLC feels more natural.

    3. Re:mplayer definitely better on OS X by Megane · · Score: 1
      VLC is unbloated... unless you try to run it on a G3. On a 500MHz Pismo, it would almost completely lock up until the most recent versions, which merely pop up the "duhhh, I missed a lot of frames" message a lot. I understand that it has a lot of Altivec-optimized routines. Which is great if you have a G4 or G5.

      I hate VLC on my laptop. I love VLC on my dual 1GHz MDD.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    4. Re:mplayer definitely better on OS X by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I just downloaded the most recent version and tried it out just to be sure. VLC still blows on my iBook 600. Slow loading, chokes to death on files that it's not fast enough to play with lots of messages even when I turned on the "hurry up" option, and actually refused to play video on a couple of files. All mplayer does is drop frames when it has to, and virtually never complains/hangs/crashes. Also, mplayer has much nicer keyboard controls to skip around the file, and a simpler, functional interface.

      --

      ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    5. Re:mplayer definitely better on OS X by ickoonite · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, on my iBook 700, I find the opposite. Perhaps I'll check MPlayer out again...

      iqu :s

  94. K-lite codec pack... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...has all the codecs and just the codecs. Also includes bsplayer, xvid, etc. Pick only the codecs you need. Small install. Works great. Latest version includes divx 5.0.5. Search google.

  95. Right on the money by Wrexen · · Score: 5, Funny

    Posted by timothy on Wed August 20, 02:42 PM
    from the neither-factual-nor-new dept.

  96. 3ivx Codec is MUCH nicer and cleaner then DivX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been using the 3ivx codec for quite a while. (http://www.3ivx.com) and it is SO much smoother, you do not get that crappy mosaic (even in movies that had them with the divx codec), there is no adware, it is free, and it works on every platform. Old div3 and div4 movies look better then they did on the divx codec, they are smoother and sharper, plus I have noticed a lower load on the machine when they are playing.

    http://www.3ivx.com

  97. You need FFDSHOW by Crass+Spektakel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    FFDSHOW is one Directshowfilter and plays em all:

    XVid, DivX3.11, 4, 5, WMV, HUFFYUV, MPG uva...

    Get it and forget about DivX...

    --
    "Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
  98. Who uses DivX anyway? by AegisKnight · · Score: 1

    I have always been a huge fan of ffdshow. Open source, no adware, AND it's way faster than the official DivX codec. My aging P2 400 can watch most movies just fine with ffdshow. I'm really surprised people put up with DivX.

    There's also XviD...

  99. At least by WTFmonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

    timothy takes it well. "As several readers have pointed out" is in the update. What he wanted to say was, "as several barking assholes have bitched, moaned, and puled about (rather than noticing that someone else already said it and leaving well enough alone)..."

    Yeah, mod me down for my superglue-to-buttcheeks maneuver if you will, but I'm right. Christ, people fuck up sometimes, no reason to reason to fill the thread with, "Dur, the link's right there, dur the link's right there!"

    1. Re:At least by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Puh-lease. Not "several barking assholes", but "Anybody who bothered to look at the page". Mistakes are one thing, but that's just plain careless.

    2. Re:At least by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Hmm, somebody's a fanboy.

      There is no excuse for this. It takes more energy to point out people's bitching than to just not post bullshit in the first place.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    3. Re:At least by WTFmonkey · · Score: 1

      Get over yourself. Quickly. Your account was created for the sole purpose of pointing out people's bullshit.

      Pot, meet kettle.

      Was I posting crap in response to crap? Yeah, probably. Fanboy-ing? Possibly, but I don't think so. It takes more energy to point out people pointing out people's bitching than to make a useful observation once in a while. Now, run along and hide another troll in an informative post. Attaboy.

    4. Re:At least by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Hook, line, and sinker.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    5. Re:At least by WTFmonkey · · Score: 1

      I am shocked, shocked, that there are bridge-guarding trolls on slashdot.
      *walks away shaking head and muttering*

  100. XVID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is the scenes choice, DivX lost the edge years ago

  101. Re:My Linux Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YHBT YHL HAND

    and you should be ashamed of yourself!

  102. Um, just remove the adware...Broken models. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If you don't like the distribution model, don't use the software, the argument for stealing it out of distaste for the distribution method instead simply doesn't hold water."

    It does when discussing the RIAA/MPAA and P2P on Slashdot.

  103. Install and delete by ellem · · Score: 1

    Install the codec, delete the adware.

    It's easy.

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.
  104. DivX 5.0.5 is Free no adaware by illumina+us · · Score: 1

    http://download.divx.com/divx/DivX505Bundle.exe Please note that the links with the images on them say DivX Pro and Dr. DivX. DivX is still free, no adaware.

    --
    -illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
    1. Re:DivX 5.0.5 is Free no adaware by illumina+us · · Score: 1

      http://www.divx.com/divx/comparison.php for a comparison of the DivX bundles. BTFW, who allowed this nonsense to get posted in the first place?

      --
      -illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
  105. The coincidence is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was just at the divx site to get the codec (still available, just scroll down) so that I could watch the latest Red vs Blue (recently glazed my C drive to get rid of blaster and all the other crap on it). And then I hit the home button to see what's on /. This is some wierd mutation of RtFA.

  106. Re:My Linux Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same reasons for me.

    That's why I don't use Windows. I might check them in a year or two

  107. WTF does "look curiously" mean?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pathetic

  108. No, but... by GuyMannDude · · Score: 1

    How can I use my mod points to rate this entire article 'WRONG'? :)

    I don't think you can use mod points to carry out punishment. However, I couldn't help but notice that little asterisk by your name. You could always stop giving the editors money to post blatantly incorrect stuff like this. Who knows: perhaps that would make an even stronger statement than mod points.

    Just a thought...

    GMD

  109. alternatives by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 4, Informative
    "This means even to just watch divx movies and not do any actual enncoding, one has to install adware on their machine."

    This is not correct. Just get the 3ivx codec which is currently $free (but not free as in speech) that plays DivX, XvID and 3ivx flavours of MPEG-4 encoded video and has no spyware. It's available on windows, mac, linux, beos and amiga. Get it - it includes both encoder and decoder, and on windows it installs an AAC (advanded audio coding) directshow filter so you can watch those MPEG-4 compliant videos with MPEG-4 compliant AAC audio streams in WMP. I never installed DivX on my machine but watch DivX video all the time thanks to this.

    And I have seen comparisons showing that the post-filtering if 3ivx actually shows divx and xvid videos better than their own native codecs. YMMV.

    (Note: Please don't quote the doom9.org comparison that said 3ivx encoding was terrible. This is only because the tester used terrible settings for the encoder since the 3ivx team did not respond to their request for good settings.)

    1. Re:alternatives by vincent99 · · Score: 1

      This is only because the tester used terrible settings for the encoder since the 3ivx team did not respond to their request for good settings.)

      It's actually much worse than that, he specifically says defaults would be used if not otherwise told, then picked a ridiculously low minimum quality that is nowhere near the default, probably because the default didn't allow him to satisfy his DivX hardon. Not just incompetence, active sabotage.

      3ivx D4.1 will be out soonish with a new and much improved 1-pass algorithm, 2-pass encoding, optional ASP encoding features, and an optional kitchen sink.

      --
      -- V
  110. Just a test by stames · · Score: 1

    I think this was just a test to find out how many /.ers actually RTFA. We all knew it wasn't the majority, but damn, this is sad.

  111. Why is this still posted then?? by smkndrkn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Doesn't the correction make this a non-story?

    --
    ======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
    1. Re:Why is this still posted then?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fud at work eh.

    2. Re:Why is this still posted then?? by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      It's from the a-chance-to-say-ogg-dept.

      Facts dont stop FUD.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    3. Re:Why is this still posted then?? by jea6 · · Score: 1

      If we made it a habit to remove non-stories, this place would dry up quick.

      I REALLY can't wait until next week when this gets posted as a dupe.

      --

      sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
    4. Re:Why is this still posted then?? by OneIsNotPrime · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Slashcode doesn't support deleting a posted story?

      Being serious here... I've always wondered why the editors add 'Oops, this is a dupe.' instead of removing a story.

      Pretty sad, but not necessarily surprising. if that isn't supported.

      --

      ---

      WARNING:Slashdot karma not redeemable in the afterlife.

    5. Re:Why is this still posted then?? by klui · · Score: 1

      'cuz the posts naming Xvid, 3ivx, and ffdshow make it a worthy story. I didn't know about ffdshow, and I sure hell will install it--and remove DivX/XviD--tonight if the alleged reduction of CPU usage is true.

    6. Re:Why is this still posted then?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But who reads the stories for the content of the articles - it's all about the great comments! Yipee!

  112. MOD UP - he posted the MS USENET TOO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does he even bother to fucking read what hes approving? Someone fire that fuck and who the fuck would pay /. for this shit?

  113. HELLO , NO ONE WANTS OGG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    its laughed at by the people that are ripping, nice effort but no one wants it and if your movie is encoded in it people will spend 15hrs transcoding it to XViD or divX than rather use it

  114. Timothy, Timothy... by nacturation · · Score: 1

    Posted by timothy on Wed August 20, 02:42 PM
    from the neither-factual-nor-new dept.


    Hey, at least he didn't mark the story as archived this time! Is Timothy getting better? No, I didn't think so either.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  115. What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This Stupid POS ignorant article made it into slashdot?

  116. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'd be more interested in learning how i can add this so-called "bogomip_bandit" moron to my foes list.

  117. Thats great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't know they had an option to download just the codec! Unless I am mistaken, now I don't have to install the adware crap or their stupid player that I never use.

    Besides, from what I can tell their stuff has contained adware for quite some time.

  118. just delete the gain_trickler.exe by Rai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's a file in one of the folders (Divx Codec i think) that contains a file "gain_trickler.exe" which is set to startup in the windows registry. Just delete the entry in regedit and delete or rename the file. (I'd give exact instructions, but I'm at work now with no access to the program...it's not hard to figure out though.)

  119. I'm usually easy on /. editors but... by Maul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is absolutely shameful that this was posted. It is hard to believe that /. editors couldn't even be bothered to scroll through the entire download page to see that there is still a link for the fee codec.

    That being said, this does show how vulnerable we are to "bait and switch" methods. Divx has been widely adopted because it was free. If all of a sudden we DID need to pay money or have adware on our PCs to use the newer version, it would cause problems.

    --

    "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

    1. Re:I'm usually easy on /. editors but... by amanpatelhotmail.com · · Score: 1
      It is hard to believe that /. editors couldn't even be bothered to scroll through the entire download page to see that there is still a link for the fee codec.

      Err... You must be new here.

    2. Re:I'm usually easy on /. editors but... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      What this illustrates is that stories are chosen based on catchy headlines or potential for controversial bitch sessions. Hence, tons of SCO and Microsoft articles, and bullshit stories like this. It exposes the sad truth that the only editorial process going on is to find a catchy headline and an eye-grabbing summary, true or false. And that's it. Screw actually checking the truth.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    3. Re:I'm usually easy on /. editors but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His userid = 83993
      Your userid = 604171

      Shut up.

  120. Thats Insane by cborawski · · Score: 1

    i cant believe that divx actually did that, if anyone really wants to download the non-adware version you can here: http://12.248.235.180/progs

  121. XviD by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, of course old non-adware versions of the divX codec will still be available for a while, but the point is that there won't be any new non-adware versions except the ones you have to buy.

    XviD is a great alternative, which looks just as good as DivX (About 5mb per minute gets you very good quality if encoded properly. 10mb per minute is near DVD quality.)

    It's completely free and GPL'd, and it's also already very popular, by my estimates its the second most popular codec, behind DivX, for the (ilegal) online distribution of movies and TV shows, unlike Ogg Theora which is completely unheard of fringe experimental codec that no serious group has ever used for a release.

    XviD source code

    Nic's XviD binary (best)

    A divX digest page with links to several other, older XviD binaries

  122. Already switched... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    We all got hooked on Divx. The Divx people know it. It will take at least a year for the effects of this to reverse itself and for the Divx encoders/users to switch to another format. ..to XviD. Also mpeg4, pretty much same quality if you ask me, and no strings attached. Of course, you still need your mpeg4 patent licence to use it for anything other than educational purposes. Then again, isn't watching movies educational? ;)

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  123. Just strip out the adware portion by mc6809e · · Score: 1

    I do agree that authors should be paid for their efforts, but this is not the way to do it. The adware mechanism is Gator which only ends up stealing money from someone else. So while the DivX folks get paid for their work, someone else no longer does. This isn't fair.

    One way to get around this is to just strip out the Gator stuff after installation. The absolute best program for this sort of thing is Spybot. This is a great piece of software. It searches and eliminates something like 10,000 keyloggers, hijackers, trojans, dialers, and all sorts of other things.

    Here is a list of threats covered.

    After downloading the Divx software, I ran Spybot and all the Gator stuff was removed.

  124. A nagging question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After Timmy's little faux pas with this article - who is more hated? Him or that fucktard, Michael?

  125. Who cares about DivX? by rzei · · Score: 4, Informative

    Who actually cares shit about DivX? We've had ffmpeg for some time! If you are honestly watching videos using windows system.. You need ffdshow directshow filter (yes, it's based on ffmpeg).

    WHY are there headlines like this on the front page? For those who are looking for encoder, mplayer comes with the famous mencoder. If my memory serves me right, latest stable (pre-)release supports latest xvid and DivX encoding options.

    -rzei

  126. Re:My Linux Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It has everything to do with Divx.

  127. Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talk about today's biggest non-story

  128. the most dauNTing tasks for the softwar hobbyists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why that would be winmodem(666) of course.

    almost everIE gnu installation we do for the generous/disheartened (abandoned buy their felonious billyonerror 'heros') public, requires replacement of the modems in their PCs. no biggIE, we pay for them ourselves, in order to help their (the innocent/unaware/hostages) escape from the naykid furor's feechurn filled liesense scammag, less painful. kind of like convincing scared horses to not return to a burning barn. talk about being victims of ?pr? ?firm? scriptdead hypenosys. yikes.

    so dick, whereis the drivers for the winmodems? or not?

  129. Hmm... by Garridan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Update: this is total bullshit.

    NEXT!

    Why does every story I ever submit get rejected, when they let shit like this through?

  130. News Worthy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok honestly the codec is still freely available.. what makes a simple page redesign noteworthy.. there has to be something of better imprtance occurning in the world

  131. mmm, mplayer.... by nvrrobx · · Score: 1

    The reasons I use mplayer and xine...

    Using that codec under Windows always had wierd results, the video would freeze or start playing at 4x the speed if I seeked through the video a bit.

  132. Re:Use FFDSHOW, it's open source. by LogicX · · Score: 1

    Also goes along great with ffshow is ac3filter for all those movies using this audio codec.

    --
    May this post be indexed by spiders, and archived for all to see as my Internet epitaph.
  133. Re:Use FFDSHOW, it's open source. by dave420 · · Score: 2, Informative
    It's fantastic. I use it all the time. It can automatically apply image-quality enhancing effects, only applying them when there is enough CPU time left to not affect the speed of the video being shown. It has great effects such as adding random grain to the image (sounds horrible, but is the true Anti-artifact, making blocky video look more like real film). Coupled with subtitle support, blurring, aspect ratio fixing, picture post-processing and support for any MPEG source (including DVD, RAW, XviD and a bunch of other things I've never even heard of).

    If you want to watch movies, this is the codec to use. Nothing even comes close. And, as conner said, it's open source :)

  134. Don't forget about Opera! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget about sucky Opera.

  135. Just like RealMedia... by Snaller · · Score: 1

    .. sleezy practices.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  136. Xvid!!! by licketyspit · · Score: 1

    When divx went commercial, I stayed with version 4, Now I use Xvid. Ogg Theara is a definite possibility, but until they have an actual release, I'll stay with xvid.

  137. Get VLC by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

    Download VLC for Windows, Linux, or OS X
    www.videolan.org

    That's all I have to say :)

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    1. Re:Get VLC by Loosewire · · Score: 1

      it would be nice is VLS had a graphical scheduler, and maybe some system for doing automatic promotions between main video files.

      --
      Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
  138. playback only codec.... by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    well...ffdshow works fine for me and it can use upto 20% less CPU time for those who want to play divx on a slow system.

    www.doom9.org has a link to it

  139. Alternatives? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

    What about DivX support in ffmpeg? What about XviD?

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  140. Wrong - So remove the damn story! by brnrd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole thing was proved incorrect anyway, so why keep it on the front page?

  141. Please support XViD by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 5, Insightful


    XViD is on the path to surpass DiVX, being rapidly developed open source.

    Nothing is different for the end-user's experience. Encoding is a teenie bit more flakey than DiVX, but I'd expect it to have surpassed DiVX within a year in the quality/compression department.

    Now only if we can drum up enough support to put Real and QT out of business. >:-)

    http://www.xvid.org/

    1. Re:Please support XViD by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Nothing is different for the end-user's experience. Encoding is a teenie bit more flakey than DiVX, but I'd expect it to have surpassed DiVX within a year in the quality/compression department.

      Nothing diffrent? Well decoding on a pentium III 733 seems to be a touch slugish under xvid there DiVX peforms quite well. This is just a casual observation to take with a grain of salt.

      The XViDs I have viewed have been of excelent quality though, well worth viewing on a system with a faster cpu then I usualy use for viewing.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    2. Re:Please support XViD by babyrat · · Score: 1

      Now only if we can drum up enough support to put Real and QT out of business. >:-)

      no - if only we can create a product good enough to force Real and QT to improve enough to force XVid and other open source alternatives to continue to better themselves and provide better products for us end-users....

  142. FREE AS IN BEER by muyuubyou · · Score: 1

    The point is people still look for "free as in beer" much more than "free as in freedom".

    The fact is they could remove the ad-free version the moment you look away because they are not guaranteeing anything by, say, an OSS license.

  143. Re:Use FFDSHOW, it's open source. by Borg_5x8 · · Score: 1

    Ugh, the ffdirect show version in the nimo codec pack has been causing people XviD hassles for ages... green playback screens, due to it not actually supporting XviD yet. Haven't checked recently, but I assume this has been remedied in the new version..?

  144. still undisputed champions of link hiding by FFON · · Score: 0

    http://www.real.com
    can you find the free player?

    --
    .cig
    1. Re:still undisputed champions of link hiding by RumpRoast · · Score: 1
      --

      My Ass hurts.
    2. Re:still undisputed champions of link hiding by FFON · · Score: 0

      you win!

      --
      .cig
  145. Divx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Divx software is now adware only because users don't have the ability to scroll down to see the free and pay versions.

  146. Somebody tell this cretin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That the fucking free version is still there.
    He's just a fucking homo loving little maggot who can't be bothered to stop jacking off for two seconds to find the proper link.

    He better get his head and his ass wired together or I will take a giant shit on him!

  147. Could Have Been a Good Thing??? by Pro_Piracy_Guy · · Score: 1

    Just think... If the DivX codec was only downloadable with adware, maybe less people would download it? This could have saved thousands of people from having to endure 'The Hulk', 'Charlies Angles II', and the rest of the "Summer Blockbusters" released this year. Please, put more adware in, my fingers are getting tired from text-messaging my friends bad movie reviews.

    1. Re:Could Have Been a Good Thing??? by sn0wcrash · · Score: 1

      Nah.. they would just pay $8 to endure it. Well.. make that more like $20 if you buy a small soda.

  148. Yeah? What about "DivX ;-}"? by autechre · · Score: 1

    DivX (I think I got the caps right) was the pay-per-play, only licensed for 1 player DVD technology that Circuit City was pushing (fortunately, it flopped horribly). So someone creates a video CODEC that's pretty good, good enough to get widespread adoption, and they name it "DivX ;-}"!? That was a really good idea; no chance of confusing anyone with that name.

    --
    WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
  149. There *IS* an open source DivX: XviD. by _KiTA_ · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ok, bit of history lesson, from the way I heard it. Back in the day, DivX 4's dev team (Project Mayo) split up, half becomming what is now DivX, and the other half becomming what would later be called the XviD team.

    Basically, the DivX guys seem more concerned with becomming a closed source but open standard group right now, and making DivX into the next VHS/DVD type standard. XviD seems to be the flip side, free software, version of the coin.

    (I should point out that this is just what I heard, and I've also heard things as absurd as that DivX is just a pirated copy of Microsoft's implimentation of MPEG4, and that SCO apparently owns UNIX, Linux, Florida, the plans to the Death Star, and my mother, so, grain of salt, eh? In other words, I might be off in my history lesson. but hey, that doesn't stop Bush, so why should it slow me? :) )

    AAAANYWAY. XviD is a MPEG4 codec, much ilke DivX (indeed, DivX and XviD can play each other's files) but XviD is completely open source, liscensed under the GPL.

    So, if you are truely fed up with DivX -- and I don't see why you would be, they're just trying to make a living -- you could also go get XviD instead. It's still beta, but it's quite nice. Fast, Slightly smaller files, and has a lot of features DivX doesn't. (Like setting credits to encode in black and white, or in a much lower quality; or intelligently encoding part of the screen at different quality levels depending on how busy that part of the screen is)

    Lately, one of the neat tricks I've seen is to use XviD and OGG audio, and combine them in some weird way. Insted of AVI files, you get OGM files, which are *much* neater. OGMs can hold more than one audio stream (English / Japanese, switch at will) and as many subtitles as you want, making them really much closer to the "nifty" factor of DVDs. But I'm no video editor, so someone else would have to chime in on OGMs. :)

    Anyway. Go give XviD a try here. http://www.xvid.org/ If you can't compile you're own source, do a search on Yahoo for "Xvid Binaries" for user made binary installers. I like Koepi's or uManiacs for Windows, myself.

  150. Of course you forgot to add... by Snaller · · Score: 1

    also, there's no better satisfaction then when my friends say to me, 'hey, i can't seem to play this video file you gave me.. how did you see it?'

    'with linux.' (did their job just drop? yep, it sure did!)


    You forgot to add: "Because I can't figure out how windows works" ;-)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:Of course you forgot to add... by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      You forgot to add: "Because I can't figure out how windows works"

      hehehe, ya, i found compiling mplayer to be easier!

  151. Distasteful-Free-Alternatives-Ware by DeepDarkSky · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is yet another twist to the many different kinds of software that tries to get users to actually PAY for the product (and who can blame them?).
    It used to be we have shareware - the pay-by-the-honor-system system. Then came the time-trial shareware, which expires after the trail period, then came the nag-ware, which pops up with windows reminding you to register your software, crippleware, which had features that were disabled or functionality limited, then came the adware, which allows you to use the software as long as you were willing to put up with seeing ads.

    So now, if you combined these (in DivX's case, it's adware and crippleware - the free version has lower quality/less features), you get Distasteful-Free-Alternatives-Ware.

    Of course, Open/Free software is ultimately better. I say they should combine more of these alternatives to really give us the choice! I think DivX should also add a full-featured (non-crippled) time-trial version, and a nag-ware version just to complete the whole set. Let US decide which one we want to be annoyed by before we finally give up and go to a free alternative or (gasp!) actually cough up the money and purchase the full version.

    FYI, I purchased the pro version of DivX because quite frankly, I watch enough DivX5.05 video files for me to justify it. For me, it was good old shareware - the pay-by-the-honor-system system. Of course, I never considered the adware version even for a second.

    1. Re:Distasteful-Free-Alternatives-Ware by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I like Ambrosia's Hectorware, if you don't register your share ware, he blows you out of the sky.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    2. Re:Distasteful-Free-Alternatives-Ware by babyrat · · Score: 1

      The adware supported version is the SAME quality as the pro version. The free version was not as good at encoding as the other pro payware or pro adware.

      Is the 'adware' 'adware' or 'adware+spyware'?

    3. Re:Distasteful-Free-Alternatives-Ware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The free version is still not as good as the Pro version. The pro version has support for QPel and other advanced codec goodies. For playback, the pro decoder has some post-processing options to make the video look nicer. I paid for the pro version because I encode lots, and even for playback I still keep the overlay logo around, because it looks kinda neat.

  152. Agreed. (NT) by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    NT = No text.

  153. 2 In One Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First T-Bag dicks up where Massey is (New Zeland, not AU) and now this. Ahhhhhhh... Jobber.

  154. Re:Use FFDSHOW, it's open source. by exaudio · · Score: 1

    I noticed that someone already mentioned the ffdshow divx / xvid codec. I just wanted add that it is an excellent open source alternative to the Divx.com commercial codec. My own opinion is that ffdshow is superior. You can find it at:

    http://sourceforge.net/projects/ffdshow/

    I've gotten great results using dvd::rip to rip dvd's and encode them to avi using xvid and playing them back on windows and linux machines using the ffdshow codec.

  155. You can run the adware version without adware... by Tomcat666 · · Score: 1

    Even if the story was true - here's the way:

    Doom9's Forum - DivX5 Adware summary

    --
    Two Worlds - One Sun [Spirit]
  156. Scroll Down? by SpamJunkie · · Score: 1

    You want me to scroll down? Bah! Next you'll tell me that I can use your fancy scrolling to access old Slashdot articles. As if. I'll use the scrollbar when I can use it without a mouse. Just like those freaking arrows on my keyboard! Where are they pointing?? I think they're supposed to indicate north, south, and whatnot but I don't remember which way it was pointing when I bought it!

    Damn computers. Why don't they just give up already, like those damn communist Nazis?

  157. Wrong by axxackall · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Unless you use Linux, right?

    Wrong. Unless you use Linux/x86. Linux users of non-x86 platforms are not welcome:

    $ tar -zxvf divx4linux-std-20030428.tar.gz
    divx4linux-2003042 8/
    divx4linux-20030428/libdivxencore.so
    divx4lin ux-20030428/libdivxdecore.so
    divx4linux-20030428/ DivX MPEG-4 Codec and Its Interface.htm
    divx4linux-20030428/encore2.h
    divx 4linux-20030428/install.sh
    divx4linux-20030428/po rtab.h
    divx4linux-20030428/decore.h
    $ file divx4linux-20030428/libdivxencore.so
    divx4linux-2 0030428/libdivxencore.so: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
    $ file divx4linux-20030428/libdivxdecore.so
    divx4linux-2 0030428/libdivxdecore.so: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
    $
    And as you can see the source code is not available.
    --

    Less is more !
    1. Re:Wrong by slimsam1 · · Score: 1

      It's still not adware if it's not available... ;)

      --
      ...
    2. Re:Wrong by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Funny. I swore you can run mplayer on more than X86 and it comes with a very capable divx codec built in .

      Why use a companies incompatable codec when you can use the open source codec for free and it works with everyone?

      download mplayer, be happy that you now can play and encode divx without tricks.

      Freevo depends on it, why dont you?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Wrong by subStance · · Score: 1

      Or just use ffdshow listed at ffmpeg. It's a win32 version of ffmpeg that runs as a direct show codec.

      --
      Servlet v2.4 container in a single 161KB jar file ? Try Winstone
    4. Re:Wrong by psm321 · · Score: 1

      I know this is kind of the wrong place to post for this, but I get inverted colors in winamp when using ffdshow with DivX files (WMP is fine). With the official DivX codec I don't get that problem. Any ideas?

    5. Re:Wrong by subStance · · Score: 1

      Not really sure, but I have noticed that ffdshow releases vary heavily in quality from one to the next. You might find that the problem disappears with an upgrade or downgrade.

      --
      Servlet v2.4 container in a single 161KB jar file ? Try Winstone
  158. I'm suprised there's by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

    no mention of Media Player Classic.
    (original site is "under construction" so google it)

    ffdshow (use the alpha above 10-10-02) has been mentioned, good.

    don't forget http://betas.intercom.net/ and snag "Real Alternative" "Quicktime Alternative" and "K-lite Codec pack"...these should take care of all your video needs and playback is excellent.
    (The QTA + MPC plays QT (mov) files better than QT itself. Of course that isn't saying much, as QT on a PC is shite).

    If you can't find MPC by itself, it is IIRC, in the k-lite full.

    I seriously dunno what happened to Divxpro after 5.03 but I was not impressed at all...trying to brighten up the picture with out burning my retinas out was impossible...with ffdshow, just right click in MPC, options, ffdshow and you have various fine grained options (just remember to check the box for the filter..doh!).

    The level of control that ffdshow gives over divx5 is by far and away the deal breaker especailly for those of us w/o the latest and greatest CPU (dual 450@504 AGP TNT2 and dual 500 with PCI GF4 440Mx).

    One word of warning for ppl with XP: to have MPC take over mov/avi files you have to fire up WMP9(?) and uncheck the DVD file type at the very least...does not make sense, I know at it drove me nuts for almost an hour. (BTW, No "set program access and defaults *DOES NOT WORK*...at all).

    I've blathered on enuf. Hope this helps someone.

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  159. divx used to be open source? by jtilak · · Score: 1

    divx used to be open source i think. they decided they were going to close it and start charging for it. i am pretty sure this is why the xvid project was started. in my opinion, this alone is good enough reason to not use divx, and to tell all your friends not to use divx.

    this is from the xvid faq:

    I certainly found it amusing to note that xvid is reverse of divx. I wonder if that's deliberate.

    Yes, the name XviD is DivX spelled backward.

    No one really knows why this name has been chosen. But some people may see in this backward spelling, the will to mark the ethical differences between the two projects.

    DivX is proprietary software, with an opaque development cycle that follows only a commercial logic. XviD is Free Software (licensed under the GNU GPL), open to all contributions, its only aim is to stick to standard compliance.

  160. DivX 3 WAS pirated by benwaggoner · · Score: 1

    Well, the modern stuff is clean, but the original version of DivX was a repackaged binary of Microsoft's MS MPEG-4 codecs from NetShow, hacked to enable them to work in .AVI file format.

    The current stuff is clean, of course. But stealing someone else's code and claiming it as your own work can be hard to live down.

    Personally, my biggest problem with DivX today is that they're still using the lousy AVI file format. I wish they'd just use .mp4 or .mov instead, like a real codec.

    1. Re:DivX 3 WAS pirated by Tom7 · · Score: 1

      > The current stuff is clean, of course. But stealing someone else's code and claiming it as your own work can be hard to live down.

      Also, taking the joke name (Remember it was "DivX ;-)", apparently poking fun at circuit-city's defunct DIVX stupidity) from a pirated release as your own in order to co-opt its popularity among the pirated movie crowd for your own commercial product, well, that's a little shady too.

    2. Re:DivX 3 WAS pirated by benwaggoner · · Score: 1

      I suppose this would be akin to someone launching a new open source development tool called "SCO."

      Just to prove that all threads on /. lead to SCO these days...

    3. Re:DivX 3 WAS pirated by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      Really? Damn. Wait, that doesn't mean SCO owns the plans to the death star, does it?

  161. Well, Xvid knows what's up by carambola5 · · Score: 1
    The XviD ChangeLog for 0.9.2 says:
    Removed SCO Unix System V code from XviD ;-)

    At least we'll only get sued for using Linux, rather than Linux and XviD.
    --
    IWARS.
    People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
  162. Even if true, a non-issue by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1


    Since when is divx.com the only place to obtain a copy of the Divx codec? Copies of the codec are everywhere.

    If the folks at divx.com try to force adware down users' throats, they'll soon find that more copies of their codec are being 'pirated' than being downloaded 'legitimately.'

    The cat's out of the bag and they can't get it back in.

  163. Re:My Linux Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well of course it sucked for you you stupid git! It's because you don't have any brains in that empty skull of yours mate. Sorry, but it doesn't take me hours to get my Palm computer or scanner working with Linux. In fact it takes less time than it does with Windows and it actually works instead of acting like a silly twit. It's all about moving from one platform to another. Any Mac user will tell you how much it sucked to go from Mac OS to Windows if they were forced to make that change. That's because they are used to one way of doing things vs/ the Windows way of doing things. Linux is the same deal. If you are used to the Windows way of doing things, it's going to take more than a few weeks to adjust to the Linux way of doing things. Get fucked asshat.

  164. Even though 3ivx is Quicktime, it'll run in WMP by macmaxbh · · Score: 1

    Just a note: If you install www.3ivx.com on a windows machine, you DO NOT have to use it in Quicktime, even though it's a Quicktime plugin. The people over there (who are very nice and helpful on the fourms) have made it so you can run 3ivx/DivX encoded movs/avis in WMP. 3ivx does DivX, but DivX doesn't do 3ivx. Got it?

    1. Re:Even though 3ivx is Quicktime, it'll run in WMP by vincent99 · · Score: 1

      3ivx is MPEG-4 just like everything else. DivX, XviD, and even Apple's codec can play it (since D4 is simple profile).

      --
      -- V
  165. Re:My Linux Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    u r n 1d10t

    I hope your palm works well, because you're never going to get a girlfriend.

  166. So that anyone who read and believed it by phorm · · Score: 1

    Can see that it's false, and thus not freak out about DivX. A lot of people just glance the headlines, a few comments. A lot less actually dare clicking through to visit the page and check for themselves.

    Wouldn't want to the robots to be mislead, after all.

  167. codec de jur by frovingslosh · · Score: 1
    Sounds like a good reason (if you needed one) to look curiously at Ogg Theora.

    Sure, lets just pick Ogg Theora or any other fringe codec, and make sure we change to a new one each week at a minimum. Of course, it will not play most of the stuff we have downloaded, or that we have already encoded ourselves, but who wants their codecs to actually be useful?

    Could it be that this false claim that the free divx codec was no longer available could have been a deliberate attempt to promote the Ogg religion? It seems hard to believe that the submitter as well as timothy didn't read the referenced page.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:codec de jur by chunkwhite86 · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean codec du jour? I assume you meant to use the french term for "of the day".

      --
      I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
  168. Re:Use FFDSHOW, it's open source. by jo44 · · Score: 1

    ffdshow works fine for my xvid decodes.

  169. Re:Use FFDSHOW, it's open source. by jo44 · · Score: 1

    I use xvid too. However, ffdshow was only suggested as an alternative to the once free divx decoder.
    There never was an ad-free encoder for divx5.

  170. Be Responsible and take the article DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't just tack on a smaller font correction "sorry, was talking out my ass" while the large bold print still says "Divx no longer free".

    Jesus.. stupid and wrong is one thing, but lazy and LIBELOUS is another.

  171. ps by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    "Spoon!"

    Can't believe I forgot to mention that. *sigh*

  172. Divx + Adware + Ad-Aware = HAPPY ME by Moryath · · Score: 1

    I think the title says it all. Download the adware version, install, run Ad-Aware, and presto, you're good to go.

    We should all be happy for this. And shame on those gator-pushing money grubbing bastards.

    1. Re:Divx + Adware + Ad-Aware = HAPPY ME by AvengerXP · · Score: 1

      Most Adware programs do not run after running a Ad-Aware style program. That why Kazaa Lite exists, with it's dummy client_dl.dll or something file, I forgot the name. It's not important, but someone will probably correct me.

      --
      Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
    2. Re:Divx + Adware + Ad-Aware = HAPPY ME by Moryath · · Score: 1

      Thankfully, Divx isn't one of them. Attempting to tie their codec to the presence of shitware would be a good way to make the geek community revolt.

      They'd never be heard from again and they know it. They skirt the edge as it is.

  173. The makers of DivX by cmburns69 · · Score: 1

    Can somebody check who owns DivX? IT seems to me that if the MPAA wanted to stop us copying movies, all it would have to do is make the only working version of the codec adware only... ...and none of us would use it...

    --
    Online Starcraft RPG? At
    Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
  174. The VP family of codecs by VanWEric · · Score: 2, Informative

    Another alternative is On2 ( www.on2.com )'s VP_ family of codecs. If you recall, VP3 is the basis of the Ogg Theora codec. It released VP3 extremely liberally, explicitly allowing others to profit from it or anything derived from it. Recently VP4 was released for "Personal Use". I'm not sure exactly what that means, but you _can_ download it and encode easily and quickly.
    http://on2.com/vp4.php3

    They currently sell their VP5 and VP6 codecs, which I feel are absolutely amazing. VP4 gets near DVD quality under a megabit, VP5 pwns VP4, and VP5 is a 40-50% improvement on processor foot print. Granted, I interned with them for a bit, but they truly do rock, even if I am biased.

    --
    www.olin.edu
    1. Re:The VP family of codecs by zero2k · · Score: 1

      Thank you so much... I was waiting for On2's next free release since I used VP3 once before (but it was slow in encoding, so I stopped). Now that VP4 is out, I'm gonna play with it. I saw some VP5 clips and they're amazing.

    2. Re:The VP family of codecs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't have a QuickTime component. Closes the pro world off.

      Useless.

  175. Nothing like LIBEL to test if the DIVX owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are feeling litigiuos.

    Small print "Oh it's not true" do not protect you guys from Large Print responsibility.

    Just take it down and smack timmy boi upside the head.

  176. Still things to thing about by JTunny · · Score: 1

    I know this a dupe, but it still raises some interesting points.

    Like GIF and MP3 before it, it's a widely used proprietory technology. Where possible we should be making the effort to move over to a GPL'd alternative such as XVID or OGG

    It's not beyond the realms of possibility that this change will take place in the future, and there will be no free/clean version. If this article has duped article writers and /. readers you can guarantee there will be countless numbers of laypeople (I'm so PC) who install the ad-ware version without realising there is a clean install available.

  177. LOL. That *is* stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what is that going to prove? That Linux is somehow better because you could watch a movie you gave them? Damn, if that one hits home you really have stupid friends.

    It doesn't matter if it is true.

    If someone sent me a movie and I couldn't watch it, and they told me "it works in linux" or mac, or BeOS, or whatever - I'm not gonna take that as if those are better and switch - I'm gonna take it that some stupid moron encoded the movie in some unknown border codec.

    Just like I do when Mac users sent me sit files on my last job. Four mac guys and about 100 Windows/Linux guys, but they still used sit. I know how to open them, but I refused and asked them to use a standard format instead.

    So tell me, how is the fact that a sit file don't open on my Windows box, but would on a Mac gonna convince me that the Mac is better instead of my notion that the Mac user is stupid or more likely, just ignorant?

    Especially here on slashdot, standards are supposedly a good thing. So how come you get modded up for *not* supporting them?

    OTOH, Windows Media Players sucks donkey balls. If nothing else because there doesn't seem to be any way to set the aspect ratio. Is there?

  178. You've got to respect how /. supports it's Editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No matter how stupid, and potentially damaging the things those editors throw onto their front page, /. will not remove or change them, they'll just tack-on a small-text disclaimer to the end.

    Pretty ballsy.

    It's also one of the reason /. is slowly joining the super-market tabloid level of news integrity.

  179. XVID by Cyno · · Score: 1

    Why does anyone still use DIVX? XVID is the real open source MPEG-4 codec.

    Been xvid/ogg/ogm since early 2002.

    Ogg Theora probably isn't quite ready yet being at the alpha2 stage and all. XVID is getting close to their 1.0 release.

  180. Well, use 3ivx then! by azav · · Score: 1

    Http://www.3vix.com/

    I've had good results with their MP4 codec and they have a great support site

    Http://www.3vix.com/forums/

    My tests have been on OS X, win 98 and win 2000

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  181. Easy mistake to make by brett42 · · Score: 1

    The download page used to have 3 options, all looking the same: pro for money, pro with ads, and basic codec for free.

    Now there are still 3 options that all look the same, and a much smaller link to the basic codec underneath.

    I don't know about everyone else, but when I just want to download something, I don't really read the text unless I have to. I just look for the big obvious download button for what I want, and from the layout of the page it wouldn't be too hard to miss it. The same goes for the editors. If you just give the page a once-over, the free download is easy to miss.

  182. Toast and vegemite by simon_aus · · Score: 1

    Don't know where you come from mate, but here it's toast and vegemite.

    But then on ./ cultural differences are embraced. Sh!t, some people even eat marmalade.

    --
    Stopping myself...Abort (core dumped)
    1. Re:Toast and vegemite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, I have butter on my Vegemite toast, as does every single other person I know.

    2. Re:Toast and vegemite by simon_aus · · Score: 1

      Nah, cover it with cheese and zap it in the microwave 'till it goes dry and crusty on top.

      --
      Stopping myself...Abort (core dumped)
  183. Suck to be Divx by bkeating · · Score: 1

    Bad move on there behalf... Ogg/Theora is just around the corner and it will own. Im waiting for the final release and then will be ripping my DVD collection to it. 3 to Ogg Vorbis/Theora/Icecast Benjamin P. Keating

  184. Am I the only one disturbed? by Merk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm pretty disturbed by the fact that:

    • This story made the front page without even the slightest attempt at fact checking
    • The story is still on the front page with the headline "Divx Now Adware Supported Only"

    I mean, I know Slashdot isn't the New York Times. I know it's fun to laugh at the lousy jobs the editors do, and the lousy job the people submitting stories do, and how awful people's spelling and grammar are, but c'mon! This is getting ridiculous.

    If OSDN can't afford to hire editors, fact checkers, or anything else, try to recruit volunteers! Do it like the moderation system. Allow random users to see stories that are about to be posted and fact check them. You could have "verified true" and "verified false", then "metaverification" to keep the fact checkers honest.

    I'd be happy to check the facts and the grammar of a few stories a month for free, in exchange for others doing it the rest of the time. Isn't that the whole idea of Open Source? Many eyes, few bugs? One person's effort helping thousands more?

    1. Re:Am I the only one disturbed? by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I don't get is how CmdrTaco can get annoyed that people complain. He says it's a free site they do for fun, etc. etc. Yeah, let's ignore the fact that the site has a massive readership and a large sphere of influence, and then act surprised when people complain that outright false things get posted to the front page. Sorta like flashing big false headlines on a blimp floating over a city and acting surprised! Playing ignorant and using excuses doesn't make it any less astonishing and annoying.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    2. Re:Am I the only one disturbed? by Boiling_point_ · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Playing ignorant and using excuses doesn't make it any less astonishing and annoying.

      It also won't stand up in court when some for-profit company sues for libel. Seriously, this is incorrect information about a for-profit company that could damage their public image. Don't worry about the "real impact" - we all know that's irrelevant in the US legal system.

      All I saw when I read the title "Divx (sic) Now Adware Supported Only" was "DivX alters business model to something I won't like". The headline is misleading even in context of the original post - it is NOT only adware, you can (still) pay for a non-advertisement-supported version just like most other software in the world.

      If this FUD was about your company, wouldn't you be pissed off?

      --
      "If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
    3. Re:Am I the only one disturbed? by wuice · · Score: 1

      Your objections are totally valid. This holds especially true for a site whose readers are so vehemently against FUD campaigns and using disinformation to smear rivals. I don't care about spelling and grammar, though such things are nice especially when the errors get in the way of understanding the issue at hand (the only real reason to become anal-retentive about spelling and grammar), but I do care about the authenticity of the stories I read on here, especially when these facts are easily verifiable by reading the article (something many slashdot readers are chastised for not doing before posting). Of course, if verification and metaverification works as well as moderation and metamoderation, I'd almost rather stick to the collective skills of the editors. :)

    4. Re:Am I the only one disturbed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you are. You're new here aren't you?

    5. Re:Am I the only one disturbed? by abiogenesis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If this FUD was about your company, wouldn't you be pissed off?

      Exactly. What would you think about a news article somewhere else that reads "Slashdot switches to paid subscribtion, no free news anymore"?

      --

      Donate free food to the hungry at The Hunger site.
    6. Re:Am I the only one disturbed? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Given that Slashdot "editors" cannot be bothered to check theor own site (for duplicate stories) I am not surprised they don't bother to check the stores of submitters.

      Heck, people have been complaining for a long time that editors don't bother to edit submission text or to add a worthwhile comment, they just copy and paste some schuck's submission and the job is done! They don't check the sumbissions claims and sometimes don't even bother to remove highly prejudiced comments.

    7. Re:Am I the only one disturbed? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1
      He says it's a free site they do for fun, etc. etc


      do for fun... not to mention the hard cash-advertising revenue, and the goodwill-linux advocacy. VA Software Corporation doesn't support /., SF.net, et al out of the goodness of their hearts - this is a solid marketing machine we're talking here. If it becomes sloppy, amateur and factually incorrect, it'll only end up rebounding on the parent company.


      I think a post-moderation system would work, just take the top 5% from the karma list. I suppose the danger might be that a pro-MS story would then get posted :)

  185. Re:Use FFDSHOW, it's open source. by Sancho · · Score: 1

    I beg to differ. There is a free, non-adware DivX encoder, however it does not have all the same features as the Pro version. Specifically (and most importantly, imo) it doesn't include support for encoding B-Frames.

    You can see from DivX.com that the free, non-ad supported codec is:
    "all the playback and encoding functionality necessary to watch and create DivX videos."

    And having used it to create DivX 5 AVI files (albeit without B-Frames) and being an avid user of ad-aware, I can verify that it does work and it does not contain adware.

  186. Re:There *IS* an open source DivX: XviD. by owlstead · · Score: 1

    The last time I tried, DivX played Xvid movies like a bicycle on a freeway.

    Maybe they should be compatible, but for now this is not the case. If anyone has problems or success the other way around, I am happy to hear from you.

  187. 3ivx is free and better! by chrisbord · · Score: 0

    3ivx is a free, and much less buggy divx codec:

    http://www.3ivx.com/

  188. Um by dsanfte · · Score: 1

    Maybe to let people who read it before the correction know it was wrong?

    --
    occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
  189. Bigger correction by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

    *sigh* Ogg is a container. It is not a suite of codecs. Ogg contains Vorbis, and so on.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  190. Um ... xvid, anyone? by shellbeach · · Score: 2, Informative
    DivX 5.0.5 is still available for Linux here, no adware attached. Actually, it would be quite funny if adware was included as that would be the first case of linux adware afaik.

    Of course, you could always use a better MPEG-4 codec that happens to be open source, like XviD, or ffmpeg. When I started ripping DVDs, I compared DivX 5.0.5 to XviD to ffmpeg, and IMO XviD provided the best quality (although all three are very close together ... ffmpeg was the fastest but lost some quality compared to the other two).

    When you consider that XviD and ffmpeg are open sourced, why would anyone use DivX 5?? (of course, this is using *nix as your OS, but according to the ffmpeg homepage you can use ffmpeg under Win32 as well ...)

    1. Re:Um ... xvid, anyone? by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 1
      I've started compressing my DVDs only recently but I would definitely choose the latest DivX PRO over XviD or ffmpeg. The quality of a DivX compressed video is way better than that of XviD and the DivX compression codec is fast. One high quality pass with XviD takes about the same time as two high quality passes using DivX.

      Sure XviD is open source. So what? As an end-user I don't do anything with the source.

    2. Re:Um ... xvid, anyone? by shellbeach · · Score: 1

      Not to sure which codec you mean by "DivX PRO" - do you mean DivX 5.0.5? All I can say is that our experiences differ if that is the case - in my experience I did not notice such a speed difference between DivX and XviD, but then I should add that I optimise all my compiled software for my machine (e.g. -O2 -march=athlon-xp -ffast-math) which I can't do with the closed-source DivX codec - perhaps that could acount for the difference? (although I find this unlikely ...) How long does it take for a single pass using your DivX PRO codec, and how fast is your machine? On my Athlon-XP 2000 system, using transcode, XviD and with fast-resize on, encoding a movie to 2CDs is approx. real-time (usually a few minutes faster) per pass.

      (If you don't mean DivX 5.0.5, please send a link - I'd be interested in trying it out ...)

      Sure XviD is open source. So what? As an end-user I don't do anything with the source.

      Well, you gain the assurance that you won't have adware coupled with your codec, for a start (which is what this article was all about)! Then there's the faster squashing of bugs, faster updates (I notice there's a new release of XviD out this month) and the knowledge that the code can be compiled to run on any platform. Personally I value all of these things, and I would have thought many others would as well ... *shrug*

  191. Well, that justifies it by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

    Yeah, a character name from Max Headroom definitely justifies it.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  192. How to identify which codecs you need by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

    Mediainfo (Win32 only)
    Nice right click identify & drag n drop interface.

    http://mediainfo.sourceforge.net/

  193. XivD should make a QuickTime component... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...so video professional can get the format being used in a professional environment. The Apple QuickTime MPEG-4 component is shocking for anything over 320x240, 3ivx is dead in the water, and DivX is evil.

    In the meantime, for all my XivD .mp4 MPEG-4 needs on Mac OS X, I use OpenShiiva. However, it's really designed for DVD .vob encoding, which is a real shame.

    A QuickTime XviD component will open XivD up to the pro world!

    1. Re:XivD should make a QuickTime component... by vincent99 · · Score: 1

      3ivx is dead in the water

      And by dead in the water you mean.. the best decoder available, under active development and about to release a major update with 2-pass encoding and advanced simple profile encoding features... I see.

      --
      -- V
  194. 5 words by timlyg · · Score: 0

    There's a new loser in town

  195. So... kill this article! by Laconian · · Score: 1

    As can be gathered from /. forum activity, 99% of all /.'ers do NOT read the fine print. Or the article at all. For the sake of keeping the facts straight and so that nerds won't make wild assumptions and gossip to all their Linux troll friends (all two of them! "CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU NEED TO LOOK AT ADS FOR THIS SOFTWARE@!?@ OMG!! WELL I CANT RUN IT ON LINUX ANYWAYS; GOTTA USE WINE, LOFL"), I recommend that this article be removed from the headlines page.

  196. you need a qualifier by wadiwood · · Score: 1

    Is that good quality or bad quality? Or roaming unfettered quality?

    --

    -- it must be true, it's on the internet.
  197. duh..... use the previous version morons by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    If you hate the adds, use the older one, lots of websites still mirror it, or get a crack damn it.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  198. Heaven Forbid!-People start reading licenses. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So the moral of the lesson is...don't read and understand the license. Then be surprised when what you thought, and the actual way it is disagree.

    Then carry a boatload of anger for the rest of your life about people taking advantage of your naivety.

    Heh! You'd think the gracenote incident would have taught people something.

    Oh Well! To paraphrase: A fool and his code are soon parted.

  199. Who cares? by Cyberllama · · Score: 1

    Honestly. . .

    Does anyone use the codec from divx.com anymore? If so, now is as good a time as any to stop. Get FFDSHOW. It does a MUCH better job decoding divx/xvid files and its actaully free. . .

    Its by far way more compatible with files made by different encoders too. . . Not to mention how it plows through bad frames with ease.

  200. Rip the adware out like i did. by msim · · Score: 1

    Just install the adware supported one (it uses gator *cringe* ) and then kill the gator program off from running and then delete it off your pc. Your pc works just fine, and gator is only on there for all of 2 minutes until you nix it. :-)

    --

    Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
  201. Re:My Linux Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you you fucking asshat motherfucker. That's always what you dickflaps come back to. If someone can deal with Linux better than you can, you wind up trying to disparage that person's abilities with their love life. Sorry, but that doesn't work on me. I don't need a fucking girlfriend because I've got a wife. And a hot one at that. So have at me motherfucker. Just because you're some pimply assed loser with no life who loves Windows, doesn't mean I have to be. I've got a damn cool life, with a sexy wife, and a great OS like Linux. Windows is for the average person and for failed "geeks". Get over it. You aren't a fucking computer genius. Big deal. Find out what you're better at and be that. But leave the real computing to the gorwn men.

  202. Simple. by WoTG · · Score: 1

    Simple. It gives bored geeks something to rant about for a while... until the next SCO story comes up.

  203. Actually, a good thing by Kyouryuu · · Score: 1
    Actually, despite the fact that this was started by a really nonsensical news story, it has actually been useful. I've complained that with DivX increasingly adware supported and the cruddy quality of RealMedia and Windows Video that a genuine open-source standard needed to be created for the purpose of compressing video, much like OGG does for audio.

    I now know about Theora and XviD which I have never heard of before. The latter I will now endeavor to use when possible.

  204. speaking of the divx codec by technicka · · Score: 1

    Being this is a pro open source community and the topic is divx codec I think thsi would be a good time and place to ask this question.

    I have recently moved to mandrake and am really enjoying it. (but still need to keep windows around explicitly to support my pocketPC,.. awful isn't it!)

    One of my major functions on my computer is encoding my dvd backups. I would like to know of a reliable system closely resembling Gordian Knot rip pack.

    Anyone got any suggestions for linux software for doing this?

  205. look out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im going from 0 to drunk in $20

  206. Benefit of the doubt by mausmalone · · Score: 1

    I'll give this guy the benefit of the doubt. I just downloaded the codec for my work computer (I goof off a lot, m'kay?) and it took me a good while to find it.

    Reminds me of when RealNetworks started having a pay-version of RealPlayer. One of their site designs obsfucated it so badly that it took me well over 15 minutes to find the "free" link.

    --
    -=-=-=-=-=
    I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
  207. Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People really should pay more attention and investiage even the slightest bit before sending in stuff to Slashdot. Of course, slashdot should try to investigate the validity of such things when they are sen in. Unfortunetly if something like this slipped thru I'm going to have to add a bit more salt when reading slashdot. As if I didn't have enough already.

  208. DivXLite by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1

    Will the guy who hacked Kazaa into Kazaa Lite please give us a little help? Thanks.

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    1. Re:DivXLite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's already been done, and is on the same dl page as k-litepp (Kazaa Lite Plus Plus). You need the k-lite codec pack which includes (amongst other things) a hacked divx pro codec.

  209. mod parent down: troll by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 1

    There's nothing unfree about the GPL except that it doesn't allow GPL'd code to become part of proprietary code, which is really the only way to keep the code free anyway...

    1. Re:mod parent down: troll by JonMartin · · Score: 1
      There's nothing unfree about the GPL except that it doesn't allow GPL'd code to become part of proprietary code, which is really the only way to keep the code free anyway...

      I wasn't trolling: there is a good point to be made here. Eventually we want these codecs to show up in commercial products, like hardware, right? Well the fact is that most companies are afraid of the GPL (hell, I'm afraid of the GPL). They would rather pay a straighforward license fee for a non-free codec than worry about the implications of dealing with the GPL. If we want to pick a codec to gain widespread adoption we should pick one with the least restrictive license: BSD. Note that in the past BSD licensed code has helped establish standards because everybody was able to use it.

      As for GPL being "the only way to keep the code free" that is simply nonsense. As long as one copy is out there BSD licensed code will be free, and nobody can make every copy vanish off the face of the Earth.

      --
      Serve Gonk.
    2. Re:mod parent down: troll by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      If the source code for a standard is "Free" (by FSF definition), then the standard specification itself is also free.

      MP3 (and MPEG in general, and GIF, and etc) is "bad" because the specification for the format is IP-encumbered. To even write your own decompression software is requires you to license a patent, copyright, or both.

      However, any data format for which a correct, GPL player exists is automatically free. Any average programmer can extract the specification, using the GPL code as a reference implementation, and then write a new program under totally his own copyright.

      As for GPL being "the only way to keep the code free" that is simply nonsense. As long as one copy is out there BSD licensed code will be free, and nobody can make every copy vanish off the face of the Earth.

      Not nonsense (although the "freak accident destroys all but one copy" scenario is a little out-there).

      If the person holding the sole surviving copy of a BSD program wants to "vanish" it, he can- even if he still uses & releases that code in software he publishes! On the other hand, if it were GPL, then he couldn't reuse the code in his own products without also re-introducing it to the world at large.

  210. Spyware in Opera? NO! by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

    It sounds like you are referring to adware Opera as spyware - or at least it might sound like it to others. Just in case anyone thinks it is: Opera is NOT spyware! It doesn't come with Gator or Digital Brilliance at all. It's got built-in ad support which doesn't spy on anyone.

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
  211. mod parent up by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 1

    Obviously I was talking about groups that illegally distribute movies and TV shows, if you paid attention to the context. And by serious I mean groups that don't suck and have been around for a while, like TCF, Centropy, esoteric, etc. TMD doesn't count because they're a bunch of stupid script kiddies who dont know their ass from a codec and just reincode other people's releases into tiny mpeg2's that look like shit.

    1. Re:mod parent up by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      As long as we understand each other...

      Why do you guys give your support to Divx? They'd fuck you over just as surely as would MS, Apple, Real and the other legitimate players. If you want freedom, you've just GOT to be using an ISO format or - better yet - an open sores one.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    2. Re:mod parent up by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 1

      open sores?? As in GNU/Syphilis?

  212. Re:Use FFDSHOW, it's open source. by Jonner · · Score: 1

    ffdshow may not encode, but ffmpeg (the "ff" in ffdshow) certainly can. I use ffmpeg's libavcodec in mencoder (part of MPlayer) all the time. Both XviD and libavcodec are excellent MPEG-4 encoders and they continue to improve. The only advantage of the gratis DivX may be that MPEG-4 licensing is taken care of.

    Though Theora isn't stable yet, VP3 is quite mature and it's Free Software and free to use, patent wise. I haven't yet seen tools to encode it on *nix, but there are Windoze and Mac ones.

  213. Oh please by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 1

    To every slashdotter who uses XviD, it costs nothing because the binaries are downloadable for free. Let the developers worry about legal harassment from MPEG LA. You'll never have to worry about their attempts at charging you unless you download software that allows them to do that. To 99.9% of people who aren't anal retentive, it doesn't matter that the legal status is questionable. All people want is a good free (as in beer) codec. It's not like it can call home and tell the MPAA lawyers to send you a nastygram.

  214. Bitrates .. by AftanGustur · · Score: 1


    XviD is a great alternative, which looks just as good as DivX (About 5mb per minute gets you very good quality if encoded properly. 10mb per minute is near DVD quality.)

    I use XviD exclusively as my video format. If you haven't checked out dvd::rip it's hight time you do so.
    Just run "perl -MCPAN -e shell" and "install Video::DVDRip". Gives you a nice GUI for dvd ripping that also provides you with a lot of information about what it is doing".

    For the bitrate, use 0.25 bits of video data per pixel of video.
    Example: If your video is 640x380 x 25fps, you have 640*380*25 = 6080000 pixels per second. Multiply it with 0.25 i.e. 6080000*0.25 = 1520 Kbps and that is the best level of quality/bitrate you will get for the compressed video.

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
  215. Slashcode Fork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a slashcode fork? Untill slashdot gets their act together, a fork might correct slashdot in their obvious issues. This is open source right? It doenst mean OSDN can sit on their ass and expect false headlines to stay around.

    Some people have every right to be pissed of at this moment.

  216. Rant! Rave! Rage! by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    Oh, I know the story is bullshit, but I'm a Slashbot, I'm not going to let boring old facts get in the way of decrying anything not pulled out of the puckered asshole of RMS or Lunis.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  217. Re:VLC on lan ?? How the hell do you get it to run by rixster · · Score: 1

    Can someone please give me an friggin idiots step by step guide to get VLC running so I can stream one file from one machine to another... When I say idiot guide, I mean "put xyz in field abc" coz I just can't get it to work :-(

    --
    Two wrongs may not make a right, but three ....
  218. another work around for windows version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Download and install adware version, reboot and run Spybot to remove the unwanted progs. Just ignore the warnings that removing adware may disable the software

  219. Who cares about adware anymore? by StringBlade · · Score: 1
    All you need is SpyBot. It's free and it works great!

    Damn purple apes don't stand a chance...nor do aligators with nothing to gain. *groan*

    --
    ...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
  220. Sounds like the same crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that RealOne does to you - a web site with the version you really buried in the fine print.

    Does give you a good feeling about the company - especially since this guys used the open source community to start this off (Project Mayo) and then abandon it to start this business.

    Traitors.

  221. damn those coders by nomadicGeek · · Score: 1
    "This means even to just watch divx movies and not do any actual enncoding, one has to install adware on their machine"

    Or you could actually pay them for it.

    I know, I know, heresy. I tend to agree.

    The only software that should be charged for is the stuff that I write. At least until someone comes up with a free open source mortgage, open source health insurance, open source electric utilities, open source government that isn't tax supported, and last but not least, a free open source woman who doesn't live to spend my money.

  222. QuickTime 6 for Macintosh registration information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Registered to: QuickTime User
    Number: Z684-9ZDD-U86D-KCGC-B760

  223. In the industry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...we call that "vapourware".

  224. Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "3ivx D4.1 will be out soonish with a new and much improved 1-pass algorithm, 2-pass encoding, optional ASP encoding features, and an optional kitchen sink."

    I love the smell of vapor in the morning...

  225. Re:There *IS* an open source DivX: XviD. by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

    Been making OGM's for a while now (I was so damned impressed with them I re-rendered al of my DVD's into OGM's rather than AVI's).

    BTW, OGM isn't just for Vorbis and XviD, it's a container format which can hold any number of streams, and has suport for much more stuff than AVI has - like you say, multiple audio and sub streams, DVD chapters, etc etc. It kicks ass, and works out of the box with my build of Xine and mPlayer, and with a bit of codec-fiddling in Media Player Classic.

    If there's any movie encoders out there, give OGM's a whirl. I'm not sure how you render them in Linux (bah), I'm using VirtualDubMod for my encodes.

    --
    Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
  226. Re:VLC on lan ?? How the hell do you get it to run by justMichael · · Score: 1

    I have not spent a lot of time messing with the streaming, but I have gotten it to work with some files.

    On the server:
    vlc /path/to/your/movies/movie.mpeg --sout udp://machine_name or ipaddress

    On the client:
    launch VLC
    File->Open Network Stream
    Select UDP/RTP, leave port default (1234)

    or you can look here

  227. Ad supported? Yeah right. by Quince+alPillan · · Score: 1

    Have any of you actually used the ad supported version? Or have you all just avoided it like the plague?

    Its a seperate program entirely. Just stop the process and delete the executable. My "ad supported" DiVX is no longer supported from my computer and its the pro version as well.

  228. More useless flame-pulling crap by billcopc · · Score: 1

    Nothing has changed. The Divx Pro encoder has always has two options: no $$ cost but adware supported, or 19.99$ no adware. The regular codec, used for regular playback, has always been free without adware.

    For a free alternative to DivX, use XVID. Better quality, directly compatible, and perhaps mildly faster. Open source, of course.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  229. Re:My Linux Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck off bitch. So I made one fucking typo, big fucking deal assmunch! Better than your fucking excuse of a president Ronald Reagan. Your SIG should say something about how he was the greatest retard president since a lump of shit. And GW Bush is so much of a mental midget I thought he was basically braindead. Face the facts asshat, Linux rules, Windows sucks and you're a fucking twat. Now go get infected while someone bends you over and you take it like the girlie you are.

  230. EVERYBODY IS MISSING THE POINT!!!! by rmezzari · · Score: 0

    I can't believe this... Hasn't nobody realized that the so called "free" version (that so many ./'ers have linked from here) now displays an ad for Divx in the low right corner of the screen every so often in the begining of the movies that you play? Has nobody else seen this?. I have no option to turn this AD off, so i guess it fits pretty well as adaware now!

    Everybody criticizes the poster and nobody goes to the lenght of downloading the codec, install it by themselves and see if it ad-ridden? Gosh...

    --
    "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds !"