Slashdot Mirror


Real adds GPL to Helix Player, RedHat/Novell Join In

kforeman writes "Today, Linux desktop industry leaders, Red Hat and Novell announced with Real a deep product development and distribution agreement that will enhance the rapidly maturing Linux desktop experience. Specifically, Red Hat and Novell will standardize on the 100% open source Helix Player as the leading multimedia framework for their Linux desktops, and will help qualify and distribute the superset RealPlayer 10 with their upcoming Linux desktop offerings. As part of the announcement, within 30 days, Real will add the GPL as a licensing option the underlying Helix Player. For all of you free software developers who have been waiting for a true GPLed industry standard AV framework, we look forward to working with you."

322 comments

  1. This is using Helix as a framework, right? by byolinux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, Helix can become the Media framework for the GNU system, like QuickTime is for Mac OS?

    1. Re:This is using Helix as a framework, right? by 1010011010 · · Score: 4, Interesting


      And I was thinking that GStreamer would end up being the "GNU System's Media Framework."

      Shows what I know.

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    2. Re:This is using Helix as a framework, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And I was thinking that GStreamer would end up being the "GNU System's Media Framework."

      Actually the good news is that GStreamer developers can now take the nice parts of Helix and put them in GStreamer. We get a Helix-GStreamer hybrid.

    3. Re:This is using Helix as a framework, right? by eckes · · Score: 1

      Well, I think there wont be a single Framework. Because for one we do have this Gnome/KDE conflict and second, various distributions judge the DRM and copyright problems differently. At least for non-streamed content integration like wincodecs or alterative decoders will not be present officially in a vendor supported player. Especially not when it is backed by Real Networks.
      --
      www.eckes.org

    4. Re:This is using Helix as a framework, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helix is GPL, GStreamer is LGPL, so no way. And all interesting parts are still closed-source.

  2. Hey! by blackmonday · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wow, that's really great ne[BUFFERING...]

    1. Re:Hey! by pe1rxq · · Score: 0

      Insightful or offtopic?

      Complaining about slashdot and/or its users:
      -10 Obvious and Redundant

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    2. Re:Hey! by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While you may have seen this JOKE 10x here, how many times has that [BUFFERING] nailed you while listening/watching a stream? I bet close to everytime you used it... now tell me THAT hasn't gotten old already.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    3. Re:Hey! by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

      [BUFFERING] = every other 10sec in bbc's webcast of the england game friday.

      --
      I do security
    4. Re:Hey! by byolinux · · Score: 2, Funny

      My just stupid?

    5. Re:Hey! by krewemaynard · · Score: 1

      *Sigh*, this happens everytime Real is mentioned in an article. It's not really that hilarious when you've seen it 10 times already.

      translation: crap! i never get to it first!

      it's t3h funnay...laugh! ;)

      --
      I saw it on Slashdot, it must be true!
    6. Re:Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>I am giving away gmail invites. Mail me. macboy@gmail.com

      my my, are not you the popular one?

      are you giving away blowjobs too?

    7. Re:Hey! by jc42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, and not only that, but you get [BUFFERING] when you play something for the 2nd or Nth time. Most other players work by downloading the file to disk and playing from that asynchronously. That way, if the download is too slow to watch, you can background the thing, and when it finishes, you can start it from the beginning and it'll be fast. But Real Player downloads it again every time, giving you those slowdowns over and over.

      They probably do this to prevent you from finding the disk copy and saving it somewhere. And so they can take it away from you when they want by just removing it from their server. It's a good example of how paranoia over "IP rights" can lead to a crummy product.

      I wonder if the "open" version will improve the product by running off a disk copy?

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    8. Re:Hey! by Lord+Kestrel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There used to be an option in the older version of Real Player that would let you save everything to disk, and set a size to the amount of disk allocated for that cache. I haven't used Real Player since the version 5 days, so I don't know if they've left that in.

    9. Re:Hey! by orasio · · Score: 2, Informative

      The thing is that the notion of a disk copy is just a workaround to slow networks, while caching (memory caching) might be nice, the ideal scenario would be to have a network so fast that makes disk access impractical. Maybe it was too much of an optimistic view of the potential of growth of the network, but I believe that for example nowadays it is a good idea to buffer on memory, but not on disk.

    10. Re:Hey! by Kadmium · · Score: 1

      That's why you download it with NetTransport. Does anyone know of a similar Linux app? Or at least a GPL windows one?

  3. So? by SpanishInquisition · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does that mean that someone can make a Windows version without all the advertising crap that comes with the standard version?

    --
    Je t'aime Stéphanie
    1. Re:So? by nidx · · Score: 5, Informative

      it is called Real Alternative - found here

    2. Re:So? by hendridm · · Score: 5, Informative

      They already have it. Real Enterprise (free reg required to download). No ads, works great. If you don't want to post fake information, you can prolly find a copy on P2P, or you can just bitch and moan about the free registration here if you prefer...

    3. Re:So? by poulbailey · · Score: 4, Informative

      > it is called Real Alternative - found here

      Real Alternative isn't a legal repack. Don't ask me why Real hasn't gone after them. Perhaps they fear more bad PR?

    4. Re:So? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who sees a bunch of garbage on that page? I certainly don't see anything related to a media player.

    5. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't work with everything. Washingtonpost.com is a prime example

    6. Re:So? by GarfBond · · Score: 1

      Which violates the terms of the RealPlayer license agreement. Now that Helix Player is 100% GPL (or will be, it was already open source under an OSI-approved RealNetworks license before), there isn't anything preventing someone from taking Helix and porting it to windows.

      AFAICT, this still doesn't affect the RealVideo and RealAudio codecs. Those are still binary-only distribution, and are not going to be GPL. But if someone can make Helix player damn good without RealVideo (and there's no reason not), that shouldn't be an issue.

    7. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Funny how nobody cared about the warezness the last 200 times Real Alternative was posted.

      MPlayer usually isn't a legal repack either. Don't ask me why Real and Microsoft haven't gone after them.

    8. Re:So? by Qwavel · · Score: 2, Insightful


      That is great - exactly what I've been looking for. Now I can get Real support on my Windows machines without the crap.

      BUT, unfortunately, with this announcement today, I'm going to try to start being nice to Real. This might even mean joining their stupid club.

      I rationalize it like this. Yes Real's software is extremely obnoxious, but they are in the unfortunate position of having to make money now from their product (as opposed to MS).

    9. Re:So? by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      I'd guess it's because they're based out of Hungary.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    10. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The gentoo mirrors which illegally mirror the win32codecs are not based out of Hungary.

    11. Re:So? by anadem · · Score: 1

      >If you don't want to post fake information,

      then you can use Mailinator at www.mailinator.com

    12. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moral of the story: Free Software Ideology is less important than getting your pr0n.

    13. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. The issue was brought up on gentoo-dev, but the response was more or less "Gentoo users have to be able to watch their .WMV p0rn clips, legality be damned".

      Gentoo's social contract isn't worth the toilet paper it's written on.

    14. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Isn't Hungary part of the EU now? Doesn't that mean it's soon going to have to adopt that Euro-DMCA thingy, I forget what it's called? I'm guessing it won't be a safe haven for fair use much longer...

    15. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RealOne Enterprise Desktop (RED) is a joke. No web sites detect it as being installed and that renders it useless. I have a 1000 user license going to waste. Their support is non-existent.

      The following sites can NOT be seen with RED and CAN be seen with Real Alternative:
      http://www.local6.com/news/2752923/d etail.html
      http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/heal th/2751809/d etail.html

    16. Re:So? by hendridm · · Score: 1

      Very odd. I just tried both sites with Windows XP and they worked perfectly under Firefox + RED. I then tried them under IE and they didn't detect. Perhaps RED isn't associating itself with IE properly?

      Anyway, it works fine with Firefox for me, which is what I care about.

    17. Re:So? by Erik+Fish · · Score: 1

      Or Sneakemail at www.sneakemail.com

    18. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, it means now you can compile spam/spyware into your kernel

  4. XIne, Mplayer... by tindur · · Score: 4, Funny

    I for one welcome our new media overlords but do you think this will have any impact on Xine, Mplayer and bros.

    1. Re:XIne, Mplayer... by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative
      In some ways, yes. Xine and MPlayer will continue to be popular because they support features that Helix doesn't and never will, most specifically anything to do with DVDs (beyond the ability to play CSS-free DVDs that are not region locked. Oh wait, that violates the patents on MPEG2. Well, ok, then it's still "anything to do with DVDs", at least as far as US residents are concerned.) Helix can't because of the legal issues.

      However, this is also Helix's strength. The fact Helix is playing strictly by the book means it will gain a lot of commercial support. Distros will be able to bundle Helix without being worried about legal issues, unlike XFree86. (Ooer, little bit of Open Source politics there, little bit of politics)

      So expect the rise of Helix and survival of the others. Of course, I prefer VLC to either Xine or MPlayer for playing DVDs... ;-)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:XIne, Mplayer... by Alexis+de+Torquemada · · Score: 2, Informative

      Helix is GPL'ed, so anyone can fork it at will. How long will it take until there are inofficial patched "DVD-Helix" versions for free download in source and binaries? Can't be such a long time. Although e.g. Linux distributors will of course stick to the official versions out of legal and maybe business-political considerations.

    3. Re:XIne, Mplayer... by pbhj · · Score: 1

      How many spotted the Ben Elton reference I wonder?

    4. Re:XIne, Mplayer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But seriously, ladies and gentlemen, the one thing you can be sure of if you use the Helix player is you're going to have to enter.. the fridge.

    5. Re:XIne, Mplayer... by gowen · · Score: 1

      Slashdot would like to warn all small children that pushing people inside old fridges is a bloody stupid thing to do.

      (that was Mr Bun Ultoon as well, IIRC)

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    6. Re:XIne, Mplayer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ben Elton? Christ, I'm glad the 80's are well and truely over. What a fucking twat.

    7. Re:XIne, Mplayer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess, you're Mr "It's only a sausage". Right?

  5. Codecs GPL'd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I thought the beef with Helix was non-free codecs. Has Real changed this, or are RH/Novell just going to distribute the shell of media player?

    1. Re:Codecs GPL'd? by pointwood · · Score: 5, Informative

      AFAIK, no - the real codecs are still proprietary. Helix does support the open source Xiph.org codecs though.

    2. Re:Codecs GPL'd? by Choron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly, who exactly cares about yet another video codec when 99.9% of the Real contents are encoded using the windows version, which is NOT playable with helix or whatever GPL version they make tomorrow. Nice try but no, I'll just keep using mplayer (which DOES let me play what I want to see) in Linux.

      Oh and yes they released a Linux version of Real Player G2 ? Man what a joke ! Did they ever run it ?

      Releasing GPL codecs is only an attempt to regain confidence from the internet community after the huge crap (read players) they spread all over. Time to clean that mess up guys !

      --
      "Naughty, naughty, naughty, you filthy old soomka !"
    3. Re:Codecs GPL'd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm... RTFA. They GPL'd helix and in turn Novell and RH are going to use the RealPlayer for linux, which is based off the Helix Player but has Real's codecs.

      They also released a beta of the Helix and RealPlayer 10 on helixcommunity. I would give that a shot over G2 for linux.

  6. Yay! by PornMaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With it GPLed, we can get something to play RealMedia files on Windows that doesn't involve the neverending barrage of ads! I'm happy for you Linux desktop folks, but the implications for an alternate player for Windows is what does it for me. -PM

    1. Re:Yay! by the+unbeliever · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have you never heard of Real Alternative?

      It's all the rage with the kids these days, I hear.

    2. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's always the free BBC version. Already runs on IE, Opera, Mozilla on Macs, PCs, Solaris, Linux etc...

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/audiohelp_install.sht ml

    3. Re:Yay! by jm.one · · Score: 1

      huh? Using Real Player 10 here i do not see any adds unless i use the so called "Real Guide" wich takes me to a webpage that is shown in it`s embedded IE (thats not good I admit). On this page there are actually Ads. (In the right corner, easy to ignore) Oh my god, they want to earn money! Perhaps they even have to pay the peolple working for `em. Maybe this adds plus the fee for the exlusive content offers the have, makes their income.

    4. Re:Yay! by LocoBurger · · Score: 1

      ..Or Media Player Classic. It's a great Windows program that plays media for whatever codecs you have installed. WMV, Quicktime, Real, MPEG-?, DivX, DVD, or anything else. And it's got a very very simple interface.

      Google it here.

    5. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second Media Player Classic. All-around-superior to Real. Doesn't even rquire installation.

    6. Re:Yay! by EtherAlchemist · · Score: 1

      Real crammed ads down their users' throats when they came out with their first incarnation of RealOne *sigh* a couple years back. They lost tons of users over it and just poured fuel on all the flames (and in fact handed out matches) about how bad it sucked, took over your system, popups/unders out the ass and so on.

      To Real's credit, they've actually gone through great pains to get rid of all popup/under advertising in the player's "Guide" (think that doesn't cost them revenue?) as well as made more of the settings "opt in" (if you choose advanced on install) but I think the damage is done, as clearly illustrated by every single person who bitches about the ads and buffering (seriously- no other player does this? bullshit.) People tried it, hated it, never went back and so continue to post about stuff that's not even relevant anymore.

      To their fault, however, they've not really taken any steps to let anybody know that there are no more ad attacks, that you can make choices about the player options or any of the other hundred things people complain about every time someone says "Real Player." I've used it for years, admittedly only because the My Library feature is hands down the best, but lately I've ventured into the Music section of their guide. There's some cool stuff there, but again- how knows about it?

      --
      R(k)
    7. Re:Yay! by aichpvee · · Score: 0

      Fits on a floppy disk too.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    8. Re:Yay! by aichpvee · · Score: 0

      Real Player has always been crap. It was never about the ads (well, not really) it was about their crappy format, their player having poor playback (yes I've used the most recent one), and of course the buffering. The point is, there has never been a need for them as other players do the job and do it better. And they killed vivo!

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
  7. Real by AliasTheRoot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've just switched my desktop OS from XP to Linux, when I was running XP I had no compunction to install Real as Media Player + assorted codecs played everything I wanted.

    So am I correct in assuming Real realizes (*bum bum*) that they have lost the windows player war and are grasping at OSS to save them?

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

      i'm confused.

      when slashdot was in it's infancy was it populated by windows geeks?

      that's like the 20th poster with a low slashdot id i've seen in the last day or so to mention that they just switched from windows to linux.

      wtf..am i in the right place?

    2. Re:Real by A+Big+Gnu+Thrush · · Score: 1
      171859 is not a low id.

      when slashdot was in it's infancy was it populated by windows geeks?

      Yes.

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

      I can't read your novel. what is it about?

    4. Re:Real by AliasTheRoot · · Score: 1

      It isn't a Lowid, I think I subscribed with this acount maybe 4 or 5 years ago? Don't remember, had another account before but lost the details for it.

      As to the Windows geek question, no I never was a Windows geek, or Linux geek - just a regular computer geek. I've tried linux on and off over the years as a Desktop O/S strating with early versions of Slack, everytime i lasted maybe a week at most.

      This time round it seems to be a bit better, the only thing i'm missing now is games and that looks to be improving.

  8. Marketspeak by PhysicsGenius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We already have a GPL'd AV player: mplayer. If by "industry-standard" you mean "a lot of pointy-hairs like it", then we also have an "industry-standard" OS: Windows. In which case, why are we all using Linux?

    1. Re:Marketspeak by hopethishelps · · Score: 5, Interesting
      We already have a GPL'd AV player: mplayer.

      But do we really? The Debian folks have excluded key parts of mplayer from their distro (they include a crippled subset that is arguably useless) because of licensing concerns.

      Now, this could just be a couple of people at the Debian project being anal-retentive; I don't pretend to fully understand the issues, and I don't know whether Debian's position makes sense or not. But at the least, there is some kind of question mark hanging over the mplayer copyrights and license.

    2. Re:Marketspeak by compactable · · Score: 5, Informative
      The issue with mplayer was not copyright ownership - it was largely with the non-GPL-ed codecs. The same issue faces the Helix player (codecs are not GPL - all that is released here is the framework).

      Check out the following philosophy of A'rpi ( http://mplayerhq.hu/homepage/design7/news-archive. html ) when faced with the concept of Debian packaging mplayer without the codecs (which is what I'm assuming Redhat & company will be doing with Helix):

      I think that including an unusable build of an application is even worse than not packaging it at all. It is not only valueless for the users (they will have to remove it and compile the source of the original version), but it gives the application a bad reputation, i.e. advertising it as a useless player being incapable of even playing a simple small file, or an unencrypted DVD (with AC3 sound)... Unfortunately most users won't notice the small comments in distribution specific files (like README.SuSE, or README.Debian) and will tell their friends, magazines (which occasionally write distro reviews) and post on portals/forums that it is a very bad, broken, unusable application.

      ... it will be interesting to see what happens with Helix payer, now that you have Redhat & Real (two public companies) trumpeting this as the big thiong fro linux desktop - will they throw in the non-gpl codecs so that everything dances perfectly, or will they ship only the shell & support for things like OGG, dissapointing linux converts used to their OS supporting more flavours of multimedia ... ?

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

      Just add:

      deb ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/ unstable main

      to your sources.list.

    4. Re:Marketspeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got mplayer in gentoo with all the appropriate use flags set. So far I have not found a single video file on the entire internet that mplayer is incapable of playing absolutely perfectly. As far as I am concerned mplayer is the be all/end all of video playing software. I wish it ran on windows, but I stopped using windows so it not as big a deal as before when I dual-booted.

    5. Re:Marketspeak by XorA · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked on debians flame war with mplayer debian were claiming I didnt hold the copyright on code I wrote. So I would take debians opinion of legality with a huge pinch of salt.

    6. Re:Marketspeak by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      Why don't you relate their arguments, instead of just flame them without evidence to back it up?

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    7. Re:Marketspeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you just search the mailing list archives instead of run your mouth?

    8. Re:Marketspeak by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      I don't think you actually can flmame someone if you have arguments to back your side up. If you do, it becomes a "lively exchange of views". The lack of arguments is essential to a proper flame war.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    9. Re:Marketspeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      mplayer developers pretend that they can legally distribute Microsoft's, Apple's and Real's binary codecs when they have received no permission to do so (no, that they're available for free from the copyright holder does not grant you permission to distribute). So I would take mplayer developers' opinions of legality with a huge pinch of salt.

    10. Re:Marketspeak by Hooded+One · · Score: 1

      ... it will be interesting to see what happens with Helix payer, now that you have Redhat & Real (two public companies) trumpeting this as the big thiong fro linux desktop - will they throw in the non-gpl codecs so that everything dances perfectly, or will they ship only the shell & support for things like OGG, dissapointing linux converts used to their OS supporting more flavours of multimedia ... ?

      From the summary (not even the article):

      Specifically, Red Hat and Novell will standardize on the 100% open source Helix Player as the leading multimedia framework for their Linux desktops, and will help qualify and distribute the superset RealPlayer 10 with their upcoming Linux desktop offerings.

      That said, I still don't see any compelling reason to use Helix. Yes, there needs to be a standard multimedia framework, but why go with one still in its infancy when there are several excellent mature ones available?

    11. Re:Marketspeak by Rysc · · Score: 1

      It does run on Windows.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    12. Re:Marketspeak by XorA · · Score: 1

      I didnt flame them, just pointed out there opinion is only an opinion. And their blatant claim that I could not GPL code I personally wrote annoyed me. It was GPL and donated to mplayer. The overall status of mplayer license does not affect my rights to GPL my code. Debian on the other hand seem to think they can govern what license my code is released under.

  9. Re:So I can get more..... by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the real point of this is that you can get real(helix) WITHOUT those things after it's gpl'd...

    hopefully windows versions as well.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  10. Re:So I can get more..... by BinLadenMyHero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, the code is open, so you it can be checked (and changed) to see what it's doing. That's just one of the many benefits of open source.

  11. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, you are missing the point. Real is not putting their typical consumer "Real Player" on the desktop, they are integrating their Open-Source Helix platform int the base of the linux desktop. The difference is, Helix is going to be a rather nice framework for any and all media playback needs. As soon as Real GPL's it, it will be like opening up the source to windows for someone to improve upon it, or make it their own. (I know, bad analogy...but you get the point).

  12. How can this possibly be modded insightful?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a GPL release, so if you thought they had adware/malware in it, you could just fork and remove the abusive content. I doubt they would even bother putting any malware in a GPL version anyway, since they know that someone would spot it and remove it.

  13. GStreamer? by protonman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What does this mean for GStreamer, which, as I understand it, has similar goals and is being used by quite some OS software already.

    Particularly in GNOME software... Which is the desktop used by RedHat and Ximian (Novell).

    Not a nice move if you ask me, it has probably to do with the mp3 licence.

    --
    The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends.
    1. Re:GStreamer? by clonek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IMO Redhat and Novell should focus their energy on GStreamer, which is already being integrated into GNOME and nautilus, and help improve that project rather than including another media player to go with the 3+ others (GStreamer, XMMS, Totem etc.)that are already installed.

    2. Re:GStreamer? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      I'm not real happy with GStreamer ... There's a noticable pause between video clips, and fullscreen (at 1280x1024) isn't as smooth as with mplayer.

      I like the video filters, though. :)

    3. Re:GStreamer? by davFr · · Score: 1

      I tried to install GStreamer but it relies on far too many Gnome libraries. So I kept with Xine, which is going better and better, and targeting in the good direction (GUI), componented (base library + any gui you prefer) and with little dependencies. Really, I don't know what features Gstreamer (or Real) claims that Xine don't (or won't) already have. If someone could tell, I would be grateful.

      --
      RIP Slashdot. I used to love you. dead account - but slashdot wont let me delete it.
    4. Re:GStreamer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Um, GStreamer doesn't depend on *any* Gnome libraries.

    5. Re:GStreamer? by Knuckles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As another poster commented already, Gstreamer does not depend on Gnome at all.

      Second, don't compare Gstream and Xine. Gstreamer is a multimedia framework

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    6. Re:GStreamer? by mrchaotica · · Score: 0

      One big advantage Helix has over GStreamer is that it's not tied to GNOME/GTK - the KDE people and the people who don't use either (like me) can use it as well.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:GStreamer? by davFr · · Score: 1

      Please escuse me, indeed, it was GST-Editor that I tried to compile. I gave up. I don't want to install a whole environment in order to run a simple application, and as GST-Editor was primary concern, I gave up Gstreamer. I will read the article more deeply, but the line "It is important to know that GStreamer has always been focused on two things : keeping the core media agnostic and keeping it GUI independent" is a good appeal for me.

      --
      RIP Slashdot. I used to love you. dead account - but slashdot wont let me delete it.
    8. Re:GStreamer? by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      accccccccctually, the current Helix player uses GTK widgets.

      --
      Why not fork?
    9. Re:GStreamer? by Wiwi+Jumbo · · Score: 2, Funny

      What does this mean for GStreamer, which, as I understand it, has similar goals and is being used by quite some OS software already.

      Well... Helix is a much cooler name then "GStreamer", so I'm guessing Helix will get all the attention from here on out.

      --
      Wiwi
      "I trust in my abilities,
      but I want more then they offer"
    10. Re:GStreamer? by joeljkp · · Score: 3, Informative

      I was of the impression that GStreamer was just a backend, and wasn't tied to GNOME/GTK at all.

      I quote from the FAQ:

      Q: What is GStreamer's relationship with the KDE community ?

      A: The GStreamer community wants to have as good a relationship as possible with KDE, and we hope that someday KDE decides to adopt GStreamer as their multimedia API, just like the GNOME community plans on doing. There have been contacts from time to time between the GStreamer community and KDE and we do already have support for the aRTSd sound server used by KDE. Also, some of the KDE hackers have created Qt bindings of GStreamer and made a simple video player.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    11. Re:GStreamer? by Nodatadj · · Score: 1

      GStreamer isn't tied to GNOME/GTK. The only thing it uses is GLib.

      There are already at least 2 KDE applications using GStreamer - Juk and Amorak.

    12. Re:GStreamer? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Oh, sorry, I just assumed...

      I feel dumb now; maybe I should go RTFFAQ

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    13. Re:GStreamer? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      GLib is a part of GTK. The fact that is had traditionally been distributed as a separate tarball in parallel with GTK is beside the point. You might not be getting the GUI toolkit, but you are tying your KDE application to a GNOME controlled package.

      GLib support as an option is a Good Thing(tm), as it allows GNOME users to use some KDE audio apps without installing all of KDE. But it should not be required. Unfortunately, the new Arts requires it, which I hope changes soon.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    14. Re:GStreamer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helix offers something that Gstream dosen't. a mediaserver (that rtps thingie). Windows allready comes bunled whit Widows Media Services and Linux is lacking quality replacement in this field!!

    15. Re:GStreamer? by Rysc · · Score: 2, Informative

      GLib is not tied to GTK, GTK is tied to GLib.

      GTK requires GLib. GLib in no way uses or requires GTK.

      GLib and GTK are required by GNOME, GNOME is in no way part of GLib or GTK.

      It's important to get things in the right order.

      Getting rid of the glib depend would be stupid. This is because the only way to get rid of it is to reimpliment parts of it. If GStreamer uses only a little, maybe they can phaze it out by just copying the bits they need into their own source tree. But if any significant portion is used, discarding glib just because "GNOME relies on it" would be stupid.

      Also, the implication that glib is controlled by GNOME is false. Influenced, certainly, because GNOME programs as a collective whole are probably the biggest users of glib, and you would have to be a fool not to listen to your users.

      GLib is simply a C library implimenting a lot of things which most C programmers are going to write themselves if they can't find an easy existing solution. A set of string functions is just the most obvious example. I used glib once in a little program just so I didn't have to write some bloody annoying string functions, and while I was at it saved time by using glib's dynamic arrays. I would have resorted to some substandard linked list stuff without glib.

      GLib is a basic component, something C programmers can use to get the more important work done. It wont be maliciously changed by GNOME villains out to wreck KDE.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    16. Re:GStreamer? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      When I said GLib was controlled by GNOME, I meant that GLib resides in GNOME CVS and developed by GNOME developers.

      I have nothing against GLib, I just don't think it should be a requirement for Qt-based applications. To give an analogy, GLib was a part of GTK before it got split off to for the benefit of non-GUI applications. Qt is going to be similarly split up in 4.0. Now imagine how loud GNOME users would scream if GNOME we're released with a QTL dependency...

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    17. Re:GStreamer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your position is nonsensical. glib is a C library released under the LGPL. Adding it as a dependency to KDE programs does absolutely no harm whatsoever. Where it lives and who develops it is irrelevant. You cannot make any rational argument against it in the vein you're trying. "I don't like it because it was developed by people that developed GNOME." Well a lot of shit is developed by people that have and do contribute to GNOME. Lots of the freedesktop.org standards that KDE uses were developed by people that contribute to GNOME. I guess you should just stop using KDE altogether and stick to Qt.

  14. still hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen this joke at least 3 times in slashdot posts for previous Real-related stories, and it still makes me snort my coffee. :)

  15. gstreamer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Gstreamer already provides GPL'd framework.
    http://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/

    Someone might want to comment pros and cons
    of Gstreamer and Helix.

    1. Re:GStreamer by clonek · · Score: 0

      In my eyes this is true. Its not a good decision for either company or the linux community.

  16. Not a crappy program - A Good Choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I see this as a great thing simply because the code will be made available to people like the developers of mplayer, who can integrate it into a command-line, accessible, ad-free no-nonsense program that I can enjoy using.

    It makes no sense to say "now we'll have a crappy player just like Windows has!"

    With the code, anyone can pull out the important decoding bits and integrate them into a non-crappy program.

    1. Re:Not a crappy program - A Good Choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The only code being made available is the code for the Helix player (already kind of but not quite open source). If you think they're opening the code to their RealShit(TM) codecs then my reply to you is "HA HA HA!"

      MPlayer already plays all of the free formats supported by the Helix player a lot better than it ever will. Also, it can already play RealShit(TM) files using either the binary Windows or Linux codecs. I believe it has native support for some of the older formats too.

    2. Re:Not a crappy program - A Good Choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go JBoss!

      Oh wait, wrong thread.

    3. Re:Not a crappy program - A Good Choice by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      Actually, Helix's license agreement is already very much open source.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
  17. Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile... everybody who actually cares will immediately remove Helix player and replace it with Xine or Mplayer.

  18. Allow access to subscription services? by grahamm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That is all well and good, but when are they going to allow non-windows Real Player 10 users to subscribe to services like (UK) Channel 4 broadband?

    1. Re:Allow access to subscription services? by caluml · · Score: 1

      Channel 4, for our US readers, is a pretty intelligent, insightful, inciteful channel. (Apart from Hollyoaks, and Big Brother). If you can watch it, watch the Channel 4 news at 7 UK time each evening. You'll learn about the real world in general, without that nasty US slant.
      You Americans might even learn something about cricket too. :)

  19. GStreamer by AirLace · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does this mean that the GStreamer media framework that Gnome has been adopting will now take the back seat in RedHat's Gnome distribution? Helix Player seems not to use the GStreamer infrastructure.

  20. They're not GPLing the codecs by DFJA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some of you seem to have missed this, they are only GPLing the Helix player. Realplayer10 is not being GPL'd, so they are not making any of their codecs available. It is therefore of very little extra value, as it is the codecs that we need to have. There are already a number of perfectly good free frameworks for multimedia. Nothing to see here folks, move on........

    --
    43 - For those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything.
    1. Re:They're not GPLing the codecs by Danathar · · Score: 1

      Get Real codec from the propriatary player...copy library to free player....and the codecs work.

      Took me 3 min

    2. Re:They're not GPLing the codecs by WareW01f · · Score: 1

      I think the Real value here is the fact that the mindshare is shifting. The main issue with the Net is not a lack of good codecs, it's a lack of people using them. You need mind share from bigger names (Real, Novell, RedHat to some extent) so that the content *providers* are encoraged to used the tech. Most sites are already a mess with offering Media Player, Real, and Quicktime, I can see why (though I don't entirely agree with it) they wouldn't want yet another format.

      This is where DRM rears it's ugly head as well. People want you to see things, but not copy them. If I have the source, I can do anything with any content you stream me. Most execs don't like that.

      I guess I'm a baby steps kinda guy, let me have an open source player, with black box codecs first. The rest will come.

      Personally though, I'm watching gStreamer. If we can nail down decoding *and* encoding into moduals that people can then build into real tools, then we'll *really* see things happen.

    3. Re:They're not GPLing the codecs by DFJA · · Score: 1

      I know it's easy to add codecs to get it to work - but the codecs are still not freely available. What you need is the source code to the libraries you are talking about. Then they will be available for anyone to take, improve on or integrate into their own player. Of course, Real don't want you to do this, they want you simply to take their player - with any of its add-ons - because it's just easier and that way you are locked into 'their' codecs. It's clear to me that they want to become _the_ standard media player for Linux. Good luck to them, but I hope people who publish material choose Ogg Theora now that the format has been frozen.

      --
      43 - For those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything.
    4. Re:They're not GPLing the codecs by pyros · · Score: 1
      What you need is the source code to the libraries you are talking about.

      or a meta package that depends on the player, and just downloads the codecs. Debian has a few packages for things like this (MS corefonts, flash, etc). The package just installs a scripts that checks for new versions on some web/ftp site. I think they're all in the contrib section though.

    5. Re:They're not GPLing the codecs by eraserewind · · Score: 1
      I guess I'm a baby steps kinda guy, let me have an open source player, with black box codecs first. The rest will come.
      Unlikely. If Real is ensuring the player remains compatable with the codecs then there is no incentive (or no more incentive than before) for people to try and write new ones, since the closed ones will always "just work".
    6. Re:They're not GPLing the codecs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering how awful the codecs are, do we even want to see them being "free"? Personally I just never want to see a single more horrid real media file of any sort.

  21. NYT Article by finny · · Score: 2, Informative

    here. Free registration is, of course, required.

    1. Re:NYT Article by thepoch · · Score: 1

      Or get your passwords from BugMeNot.com

      weeee.

  22. Latest for Windows by blackmonday · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The latest version of Real Player for Windows is actually pretty nice. I installed it the other day, and they've really made progress on the whole adware /hidden opt-in fiasco. The player defaulted to the minimum no frills compact mode, and I've found real video's video codec to be very competitive with quicktime. I'm the one who made the buffering joke, but Real has been trying to clean up their act lately (link to free player on main page), and I support them for that.

    1. Re:Latest for Windows by pcardno · · Score: 0, Troll

      I installed it the other day as well.. Well, I didn't. RealOnePlayer installed it itself while I was off getting lunch.. I came back to a few Windows open showing it had been installed. Imagine my joy at having a newer, fatter, more pointless version installed without my permission.

      --
      --- Band: Joey Ultra
    2. Re:Latest for Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I installed it the other day as well.. Well, I didn't. RealOnePlayer installed it itself while I was off getting lunch.. I came back to a few Windows open showing it had been installed. Imagine my joy at having a newer, fatter, more pointless version installed without my permission."

      I call bullshit on you.

    3. Re:Latest for Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call bullshit on you too. How the hell would realplayer install itself? I've never heard of a media player doing that. Are you sure it wasn't bundled with some software you installed off a cd, like for a portable mp3 player or something?

    4. Re:Latest for Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell would realplayer install itself?


      How? Probably auto-updating.

  23. Re:So I can get more..... by blancolioni · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, every time Real is mentioned on /. somebody will parrot this. It's such a cheap shot: you haven't said anything that hasn't been said a hundred times before, and in particular, it's hard to imagine how a GPL'd player could possibly install anything that you didn't want it to.

    Nor can I imagine Red Hat suddenly changing into the kind of company that distributes malware.

    Perhaps you could post a comment that actually relates to the story at hand, rather than recycling the same old junk from a hundred other comments.

    (PS: ok, I can imagine how a GPL'd product could install bad stuff, but I can't imagine that it (the malware) would be around long enough to make it worth anybody's time to put in there)

    (I'm also aware of Ken Thompsons ACM Award speech, which doesn't apply in the slightest)

  24. what was wrong with Xine and Totem? by davejenkins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What I don't understand is why the companies didn't simply formalize and commit to enhancing the current packages that are out there. Xine, Totem, and others already play MPG, AVI, and even WMV formats--

    This seems more like a marketshare play for Real (who is scared of getting streamlined into oblivion by the Evil Empire), especially now that technically Linux has more desktops than Mac. I would guess that Real will take the opportunity to cram all sorts of its bloat and content tie-ins with this, but that the Linux community will tell them to get bent. Another possible play here is that Real hopes to "get in early" for this developing desktop market, and make thier future totally on the content-providing end. I can see them packaging up some sort of MediaServer software to run on company's Linux networks...

    1. Re:what was wrong with Xine and Totem? by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1

      Why not formalize with the current offerings?
      Well, by getting a contract with a company like Real, they can enforce that a certain amount of work is done on the product. This is because if they fail to keep it up, they can be liable under breach of contract.

      Getting in early? Absolutely. They did it on windows 10 years ago. They are doing it on phones and other mobile devices right now.

      Regarding media server software for linux, Real has offered the Real Server for linux for quite some time. It is also the better server product. Last reports show that when streaming windows media with the Real Server that the linux server can handle 4 x's as much traffic. Serving Real content, the Linux Real Server can handle twice as much as when running on windows.

      --
      ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
    2. Re:what was wrong with Xine and Totem? by Zorilla · · Score: 1

      I like the way Xine is evolving so far. Tt's a lot harder to develop the backend than it is to make a frontend, which is really where the individual user's preference lies, and there's really no need to reinvent the wheel if the backend works.

      That being said, I still have yet to see Xine play WMV9 video properly, as well as many Real codecs. WMV9 as a system plays, but you only get audio without video due to the lack of the video codec. Plus, there's the thing with RealPlayer videos playing at the wrong framerate. This is my experience on Mandrake 9.1, 9.2, 10.0 and SuSE 9.1 Personal (with third party xinelib package installed to be able to play anything that isn't an MPEG). Hope things improve. I think WMV9 playback would be a small breakthrough.

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    3. Re:what was wrong with Xine and Totem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Have you used Xine and/or Totem?

      Honestly, their user interface leave much to be desired. They look very old and clunky. Helix actually has a very nice and slick interface. You should give it a try sometime; it's not for everyone (some people do like the old look), but I think many people will like the Helix player interface.

    4. Re:what was wrong with Xine and Totem? by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      The goal is to get you hooked on their player so you'll want to buy the commercial version with the proprietary codecs. If you get used to using the other players it will be a bigger deal to switch. Something like that...

    5. Re:what was wrong with Xine and Totem? by a_karbon_devel_005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What I don't understand is why the companies didn't simply formalize and commit to enhancing the current packages that are out there. Xine, Totem, and others already play MPG, AVI, and even WMV formats--

      They play the formats, sure, but legally? There's a reason Novell doesn't ship SuSE with .avi support for Kaffeine and it's not that they forgot it.

      Whats going on here is that Novell is using Linux to make money, and Real thinks that might be a good idea. They are losing ( have lost? ) the media-players-for-windows war, and have realized that having a player they can advertise works perfectly and legally on windows, mac AND linux would be something that Quicktime and windows formats can't advertise.

      I think it's a smart move for everyone involved, and even if it's mercenary, hey! At least Real is paying attention to us!

    6. Re:what was wrong with Xine and Totem? by aichpvee · · Score: 0

      I've seen it and it doesn't look "nice" or "slick", so say nothing of being "very" much of either. It looks lamer than the new firefox theme. I even like the look of Quicktime Player better.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
  25. what about mplayer and videolan by elinenbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    come on... we have 2 very polished, mature players out there -- why put time and energy into this "proprietary" project when vlc is probably the best player out there (and already open source)?

    --
    -eric
    1. Re:what about mplayer and videolan by Kohath · · Score: 2, Funny

      vlc is crash-prone -- at least on Windows.

    2. Re:what about mplayer and videolan by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      an older vlc was very crash prone but the latest runs fine

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:what about mplayer and videolan by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      vlc is crash-prone -- at least on Windows.

      Perhaps for you. I run VLC on Windows 2000 and it's far more stable than Windows Media Player. Not to mention that Windows Media Player is always choking on some file or another, while VLC plays them without complaint. Granted, VLC wouldn't be needed if the people doing the encodings knew how to NOT corrupt the file six ways to Sunday.

      For example, I downloaded a little video called "TOS vs. TNG: The Final Battle". While it was a mildly amusing home-brew video, Windows Media Player choked about 80% through the file. If I fast forwarded past the point of the error, I'd get video but no sound. When I loaded it in VLC, it was able to play it through without error.

    4. Re:what about mplayer and videolan by Kohath · · Score: 1

      We run the latest version. After a while, the client always crashes. Sometimes it takes a day or 2.

  26. Re:Great! by MondoMor · · Score: 0

    Well they say

    "Red Hat and Novell ... will help qualify and distribute the superset RealPlayer 10 with their upcoming Linux desktop offerings. "

    I can only assume that means that RealPlayer and its horribly bloated, slow, and low-quality codecs will be freely available for even Lunix now. If the player is GPLed, some of its shittastic behavior will be removed, but in the end it's still Real, and will NEVER EVER find its way onto another one of the machines I control.

  27. well if they make a player by zogger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that will play all the normal formats out there, and not be a piece of spyware and crapware, I'll try it. I notice at the site referenced there are zero comments in the forum so far. If anyone feels like registering (I don't, not a developer so it's a waste of time) ask them that question-all the formats, or what? I know that the alternatives like mplayer exist, but frankly, I just can't make mplayer (nor xine nor rhythm box) to actually play any alternative streams. I USED to be able to use mplayer, but I admit defeat, I've spent enough hours on it now, I giveth up. I use xmms that works easily for mp3 streaming and the real player from the bbc to listen to either mp3 or real streams. I haven't been able to listen to a single windows stream on mplayer (or anything else) yet, it attemtps to play it then crashes. Back when I was running RH 7x series, I got it to work quite easily, now, nope, and I downloaded all the dang codecs I could find. I'm a binary guy mostly, I just decided I wasn't going to fool with compiling and flags and suchlike anymore, it shouldn't be needed for normal computer useage unless you are running a source based distro, and I ain't. This is 2004, not 1994.

    Anyway, good luck to helix in general, glad to see they keep getting hipper. It's taken a while for real to "get real" I hope the trends continue, and with redhat and novell support, maybe it will. It would be *real dang nice* to have one easily installed player with simple or no config tweaking or putzing with the kernel and modules, etc required that actually *played* everything outta the box.

  28. VLC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    VLC is already as polished and stable as they come, and it plays a heck of a lot more than Helix Player will ever play (at least in the near future). And it already works on almost every platform imaginable. And it's been open source from the very beginning.

    1. Re:VLC by mritunjai · · Score: 2, Informative

      VLC ain't free! ... because VLC and MPlayer use many patented codecs and algorithms! They can't be free (as in beer and more importantly, as in SPEECH!)

      Now as an end-user you may use them, and though its illegal you can mostly get away with that, but as a "corporation", Redhat and Novell etc can't touch them even with a 10 meter barge pole!

      Helix, otoh, as a product from Real themselves, can be used *LEGALLY*.

      Being legal is important when it comes to being in business and making money. As Redhat Corp, last thing I'd want is thrown out of business by a NNN million dollar lawsuite claiming infringement on XYZ number of MPEG4 patents.

      --
      - mritunjai
    2. Re:VLC by Knuckles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      VLC and MPlayer are perfectly free if you don't distribute proprietary codecs. And guess what, Helix will have proprietary codecs, too, which will not be freed. So, as far as this goes, there's absolutely no difference

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    3. Re:VLC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GPL prohibits one from distributing most patented software. VLC/MPlayer violates the GPL in most countries.

    4. Re:VLC by mritunjai · · Score: 1
      VLC and MPlayer are perfectly free if you don't distribute proprietary codecs.

      And what exactly you'd do with them ? The utility of VLC and Mplayer is in being able to play number of formats, which happen to be one or other variation of MPEG4. You can't legally distribute MPEG4 codecs without playing fee to the consortium, ditto for patented ASF, and when you take out MPEG4 (divx, xvid etc) and ASF codecs, it as good as any other proprietary piece of crap!!

      And guess what, Helix will have proprietary codecs, too, which will not be freed. So, as far as this goes, there's absolutely no difference

      Of course! but here the proprietary codec happens to be Real's... and you'd be surprized to know that Real's decoder, at least, is available free of charge and can be *LEGALLY used in helix.

      Belive me folks... this is VERY good news for Linux media scene. There are ONLY 3(*) major competitors in high quality streaming/non-streaming media *business*, and Linux has been DAMN lucky to get one.

      [* The other two are Apple (quicktime) and Microsoft (windows media)... now you can get open champagne again when you get Apple on board!!]

      --
      - mritunjai
    5. Re:VLC by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      VLC/MPlayer don't. Distributors distributing proprietary codecs with them do (but then, I don't know anyone who does)

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  29. why I don't use real by barcodez · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I stopped installing Real on any machine some years ago. I got fed up with it changing my homepage, installing crapware and altering my mime settings. Since then I have stopped using Windows at home but haven't installed Real Player on my Linux boxes just because of my lack in trust of software coming from Real.

    What's my point? Well I'm just suspicious because this sounds like a major turn around. Next thing we know Gator will bring out a spyware removal tool.

    I hope it goes well because I would love to play the ram feeds from the BBC and other sites on my Linux box.

    --

    ----
    1. Re:why I don't use real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the Helix Player, NOT RealPlayer. And the Helix player is actually quite good (And I think it also plays ogg Theora). Helix is also open, and includes no malware.

      Real hasn't been the best of companies, I agree. but do you think, that even then the program is GPL'd, we could kind of, possibly, just maybe give them another chance?

    2. Re:why I don't use real by polyp2000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "just because of my lack in trust of software coming from Real"

      Now that you can look at the source-code and evaluate for yourself the trustworthiness of Real that comment is now largely irrelevant for you and many people. It is a fairly major turnaround although many WMV zealots would have you beleive otherwise. Having the source code open will enevitably lead to a better product and a more diverse range of tools. The Real format is out there and it is in widespread use. This can only be a beneficial move in the long run.

      --
      Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    3. Re:why I don't use real by Wolfbone · · Score: 1

      "...I would love to play the ram feeds from the BBC ..."

      Unfortunately this news probably removes what little incentive the BBC may ever have had to provide their promised ogg streams. The BBC could have been a major force for good in this area but despite their size and power it seems they've surrendered to the irrational fears of third party rights holders and perversely, have even failed to make their own material freely and fully available.

      Ever since I moved into a flat in which I can't get a decent EMR stream I hoped that the BBC would begin to make use of the pro bono publico technologies available to them. I tried their ram streams before I was aware of the issues surrounding such formats (and how inappropriate it was for the BBC to use them so exclusively) but the video streams were terrible and ate up all my memory before crashing X and the audio streams were of poor quality and often unreliable.

      I should have known better than to expect the BBC to show any concerns about what is in the best interests of the public: They are bbc.co.uk and not bbc.org.uk after all and in recent years they seem to have made every effort to ensure that they better reflect that choice of domain name rather than the public service commitments of their charter.

      Ironically, I now listen to the BBC World service streamed to me courtesy of WNYC.org and have found many of the other NPR programmes to be of equal quality to anything the likes of Radio 4 and 5 transmit. I have even found replacements for Radio 3, an especially good one being www.rozhlas.cz.

  30. Better than that by BESTouff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Gstreamer's framework is LGPL'd, so it allows proprietary implementations on top of it - unlike of course Real's Helixplayer. IMHO this is doommed to fail unless they change their licensing plan.

  31. No, try reading the article... by Phil+John · · Score: 1

    ...Real open sourced the Helix code a couple of years ago under a different license (probably CPL), they have an active OSS developer base working on it, they are simply adding the GPL as another licensing option.

    Real has been more about content and their server offerings than anything else of late, which is funneled through their player. They "grasped" at open source a few years ago when they decided to do a netscape.

    --
    I am NaN
  32. You keep using that word... by wowbagger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Compunction - you keep using that word - I do not think it means what you think it means:


    compunction ( P ) Pronunciation Key (km-pngkshn)
    n.

    1. A strong uneasiness caused by a sense of guilt. See Synonyms at penitence.
    2. A sting of conscience or a pang of doubt aroused by wrongdoing or the prospect of wrongdoing. See Synonyms at qualm.


    To have no compunction about installing Real would mean you had no fear of installing Real.

    I think you mean you had no motivation to install Real.

    1. Re:You keep using that word... by pyros · · Score: 1

      I used it once, want a definition of the word once?

      Try learning words in context of the sentences they are presented in and not according to the strict definition in an online dictionary.

      the phrase "no compunction" suggests no feel of uneasiness or no sting of conscience.

      which is correct, windows media player played all I wanted and installing real would just give me stupid advertisements etc.

      go back to school.

      dude, you're schooling yourself and you don't even realise it. You said you "had no compunction to install Real." Which means you had "no feel of uneasiness or no sting on conscience" to install Real. Basically you said you felt ok with yourself about installing Real, when you we're talking about not installing Real. So if you're not installing Real, why would you tell us you don't feel bad about installing Real?

    2. Re:You keep using that word... by AliasTheRoot · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      owned. it's a shame noone understood what I meant.

      oh wait, they did. redefining english on the fly r us.

    3. Re:You keep using that word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's sad that people don't understand the meaning of the words they use...

    4. Re:You keep using that word... by radiophonic · · Score: 1

      I have no compunction but I did get conjunctivitis once...and it was REAL.

      --
      Whenever you read this sig someone's refrigerator light turns on.
    5. Re:You keep using that word... by AliasTheRoot · · Score: 1

      We also realized that you don't understand the words you are using. This tends to reduce our opinion of your writing.

      And like I give a fuck? Excuse me I used a wrong word in an incorrect context whilst writing off the top of my head. 90% agreed with the overall sentiment, 10% disagreed with the grammatical structure. But if you will excuse me, Gnome is 85% done compiling and I should attend to it. (but I think the installer made that number up)

  33. No, try reading the post... by AliasTheRoot · · Score: 1

    If you want to make a post that gets modded up don't attach it a random post and go offtopic. Well unless you show us some nude video of Natalie Portman or something.

    My point was Real is an annoyance Windows users install if they have to get videos off the 0.001% of sites that are "Real" required.

    I never came across any content that I wanted to access that Windows Media Player + Divx etc couldn't access.

    So why do I want Real or OSS variant? Their encoding is shitty and their realtime streaming is even shittier.

    1. Re:No, try reading the post... by jsebrech · · Score: 1

      So why do I want Real or OSS variant? Their encoding is shitty and their realtime streaming is even shittier.

      There are still a lot of online radio stations which only stream in real. And why do you say the streaming is shitty? The buffering ... buffering does not happen in my experience more often with real than with mediaplayer.

    2. Re:No, try reading the post... by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Why does my googling of "nude video of Natalie Portman" bring me to this thread ? Stupid Slashdot :(

      ObOnTopic : is it just me or is most content nowadays available as something that will play through ffmpeg anyway ? (I play it through the totem interface for the xine libs, YMMV).

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
  34. Re:So I can get more..... by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1

    And if you had actually tried the Helix (or RealPlayer10 for that matter) for Linux you would see that your statement is just plain out of line.

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
  35. Re:So I can get more..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It also means...
    adware, spyware, and malware has now been GPLed! Rejoice! We can now include those into the Linux kernel source, since the licenes are compatibile.

  36. Re:So I can get more..... by Trauma_Hound1 · · Score: 1

    Whomever modded this insightful, is a real big moron. There has never been adware, malware etc on the linux version.

    --
    Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
  37. Re:Great! by Commander+Trollco · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know too much about Helix, so I could be way off, but I would agree with the parent poster sentiment. It may be GPLed, but it's from RM... {cue scary music}. I will admit that they have improved a little recently (tried on a friends comp, use R-alternative meself).

    --
    http://persianews.on.nimp.org/?u=Tar_Baby
  38. Re:So I can get more..... by byolinux · · Score: 1

    Changed?

    Actually, that's one of the freedoms of free software... but you MIGHT get it with open source software, but not always.

  39. That's great... by Dolda2000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...and all, more proprietary products being GPL'd and all. I love seeing that. - But - Just how is Helix actually better than MPlayer, Xine, gstreamer, etc.? I mean, MPlayer and Xine are probably the most mature stand-alone players there are right now, and gstreamer provides probably the best architecture I've seen, and it's also integrated throughout GNOME (and soon KDE as well, as I've heard). Just what advantages does Helix provide over these?

    1. Re:That's great... by tabdelgawad · · Score: 1

      Corporate backing.

      --
      Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
  40. Re:Chunks' by polyp2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But hey guess what; With the new Open Source GPL version everyone who thinks that Real is crap can now take the source code and improve it; making it so its not crap anymore. If you think that real is crap and can suggest ways that it might be better you have an opportunity to go over to the helix developer site and make suggestions that if they are constructive and not overzealous (like your comment) could actually go into making real a better product.

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
  41. Infection vectors by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Aren't most of the Windows infection vectors actually buggy buffer-overflow vulnerabilities in the various system APIs? i.e. Isn't it the underlying DHTML, DNS resolution, etc. that cause the Windows versions of products like Real's to be such a problem?

    The one thing I'd like to see come out of this is a common framework for registering protocol and file handlers. It gets so very, very tiring to have to configure each email package, each browser, the file manager, the display manager, etc. to use the applications I want instead of their defaults.

    Both Gnome and KDE try to provide APIs to address that issue, but even Mozilla doesn't properly hook itself in to either system. If Real's framework will clean up that mess, I'm all for using their open source implementation to resolve the problem.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Infection vectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Aren't most of the Windows infection vectors actually buggy buffer-overflow vulnerabilities

      ahhhh, it's all starting to make sense n[BUFFERING]

  42. How the hell do I use Helix by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Ok, I know how to use MPlayer. I go to the page, download the source, follow the build instructions and get a program that plays video and audio. Now wtf does helix do? I haven't found a site where I can download the helix code and compile it to a usable media player. I also haven't seen the site that offers a nice Real Player 10 rpm that could take the place of mplayer.

    I always see a lot of hype on slashdot about helix and Real etc. I really want a nice, fully featured package that has browser integration, a nice interface (mplayer's gui is not nice. sorry.), and the ability to play all my video/audio. But right now all I see is discussion of some 'framework' that bla bla bla. Please. Give me something tangible to use!

    --
    I do security
    1. Re:How the hell do I use Helix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, here's the download page.
      Christ, that was one second on google, why couldn't you have just done that rather then go on a stupid rant?

    2. Re:How the hell do I use Helix by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

      All I see there is a player that looks like totem or mplayer etc. Where's the improvement over what I've already had for a couple years?

      --
      I do security
    3. Re:How the hell do I use Helix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Small, really good OGG suppport (Vorbis/Theora). Can play realmedia (rm) files.

      Other then that, there's not much different from, say, Totem.

  43. Or just like the Ogg framework everywhere else... by leonbrooks · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...oops.

    What Helix does bring to the party is WMA, which allows you to listen Freely to all of the radio stations and such that have been suckered into the DRM boondoggle and consequently work only with Microsoft's moderately crappy WMP codec.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  44. closed minds by Danathar · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's amazing how many people are so freaking closed mind about anything real does. Real has been doing opensource for a couple of years now trying to fix the problems and complains. Yes, they did listen to the complaints.

    "I hate Real it has all that malware and ad crap"

    but they've removed it

    "I hate Real it has all that malware and ad crap"

    It's really better

    "I hate Real it has all that malware and ad crap"

    ad nausium....come on people. Don't base your opinions on software 2 years old. Try the freeware and newest stuff. Then evaluate it

    1. Re:closed minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ok, either farking open up the codec or make it a psudeocode and give away that binary and the source for how to access it/use it.

      Until then they are not doing SQUAT in open source.

      OHH! someone open sourced their GUI for an app, but is keeping all the code inside that does anything secret.... whooptie freaking do.

      there are many ways for them to make the Codec 100% portable and have a free/oss wrapper so anyone can play the damned files. they just refuse to do it.

    2. Re:closed minds by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "come on people. Don't base your opinions on software 2 years old."

      I'm basing my opinion on the spam they sent me less than a day ago... Besides, it takes a long time to wear off a reputation that bad..

    3. Re:closed minds by cymen · · Score: 1

      I agree. We should let convicted serial killers back out every couple years "just to double check." You never know!

    4. Re:closed minds by hkb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bridges take a lot longer to build or rebuild than they do to get torn down. It's not "closed mindedness", it's an issue of trust. Real hasn't quite earned it back, yet.

      --
      /* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
    5. Re:closed minds by jsebrech · · Score: 1

      If you're being serious, you should know that in all likelihood they are legally unable to open source their codecs due to patents covering them. Most codecs out there can not be legally open-sourced because they are based on patents licensed from someone else.

      So complaining real doesn't open their codecs is really not fair unless you know for a fact that it's not covered by patents, or it is only covered by patents owned by real inc.

    6. Re:closed minds by Wally_Hntr · · Score: 1

      Good one. They are one in the same. Idiot.

    7. Re:closed minds by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Real won't let you use the binary codec to decode Real files into other formats. Are you trying to tell me that's because of code or patents licensed from someone else?

      I don't think so. I think it's Real being two-faced.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  45. The Reason for Starting Something New by TornSheetMetal · · Score: 1

    The reason these companies are not just adding to the other media players such as xine and mplayer is that these companies want to own/control the copyright. If the software is widely used, they can license for commercial companies similar to what Troll Tech does for QT.

  46. Reg Free Link by hether · · Score: 1

    To a NY Times article on the subject from this morning:

    The big Linux vendors will ship Real Player 10 as part of the operating system, another step in trying to make Linux on the desktop a legitimate alternative to Windows.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/28/technology/28lin ux.html?ex=1089433511&ei=1&en=012b87883877ae0f

    --

    Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
  47. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Point is it doesn't add anything next to the current frameworks and players. The only thing Real COULD add is the RealVideo/RealAudio codecs. Those were and still are proprietary.

    What's added? Good marketing for Real for something which is less useful than it seems. Novell and RedHat help them a hand, sadly.

    Why don't they support GStreamer instead? At least it's an innovating company behind it. You may thank them for OGG Theora. They've supported the development; a good competitor to RealVideo.

  48. Heh... by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

    more than Helix Player will *ever* play (at least in the *near future*)

    Heh ... you're funny. Sorry, but I just couldn't resist.

  49. get the bbc version of the player by zogger · · Score: 2, Informative

    based on a recommendation I got here on another thread some time back, I went and got the realplayer that the bbc releases. It *allegedly* has the bloat and spyware removed from the "normal" real player. It works fine on my linux box, and I haven't seen any ads, popups, etc from it. I used it to watch spaceshipone covereage from the bbc, with just a dialup connection and it was a smooth feed. The realplayer beta 10 version did NOT work though for me, so I used the 9 version from the bbc. Just goto their homepage at bbc and look down, you'll see the link to go get their version of the player.

  50. Re:Great! by skaffen42 · · Score: 1

    Dude, at least learn to spell Linux correctly. Spelling Linux wrong in two posts just makes you look like an idiot, rather than someone who might have a valid point.

    --
    People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
  51. Codecs contain spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting


    i see everyone preaching "hurrah no spyware in the Linux player" and "if it has adware inside then just fork"

    while the player might be open source/gpl its merely a simple GUI/shell for the codecs which are not being opened in any form whatsoever, codecs are what makes it work (hence real alternative can decode streams)
    now if Real was smart they would put any tracking/privacy/evil code inside the pre-compiled binary codec, you can't easily check it (apart from disassembling to ASM in debugger which is probably DMCA infinging anyway)

    so while you sit there at your Linux box saying "no adware in here" the reality is you have no idea whats contained in those files as the actual components that do the decoding of the streams is closed source and will likely never be open.

    but iam sure every six months as usual a Real(TM) press release/slashdot story will popup and say but the player is open source
    in a desperate bid to have their formats accepted by the OSS crowd/decision makers to lend an air of credibility to their companies dubious activities

    A>S

    1. Re:Codecs contain spyware by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      so while you sit there at your Linux box saying "no adware in here" the reality is you have no idea whats contained in those files as the actual components that do the decoding of the streams is closed source and will likely never be open.

      I feel pretty certain I will be able to tell if it's got adware in it...because...it will display ads. Perhaps you are inferring that we can't tell if it has spyware. All I can say is snort.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    2. Re:Codecs contain spyware by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Simple test, sniff the codec for any information going back to Real when you're streaming a movie or something similar that is not coming from a Real source.

      I seriously doubt you'll find anything. I mean, do you REALLY believe they'd put spyware / adware INSIDE their codec?

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    3. Re:Codecs contain spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm... If *I* were going to hide some spyware I'd do it in form of a unique id in the communication stream back to the server. Then the server could dump client statistics periodically to RN. That way, it would remain fairly hidden.

    4. Re:Codecs contain spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      And queue up the results on the hard drive and don't send them until the next time the network has a lot of activity.

      Then the user'll think it's Outlook or Blaster or other simliar popupler windows software that's connecting to Real.

  52. Nah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yo, warezkid. That's only for Win32 and it is illegal. Read the license of the proprietary Real codecs. Same counts for Quicktime. You may only play such video with the appropriate player with which the codec came; hence no such thing as "Real Alternative"

  53. Re:So I can get more..... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    PS: ok, I can imagine how a GPL'd product could install bad stuff, but I can't imagine that it (the malware) would be around long enough to make it worth anybody's time to put in there

    Well, that really depends. Sure, a distro or competent programmer could rip it out in next to no time, and release a "clean" version of the product. Once Linux starts attarcting significant numbers of users, however, a growing proportion of those users will be the sort who download cool stuff from wherever with no thought to possible unwanted consequences.

    On Windows, for example, there are a great many P2P clients, some with malware, some without. The ones with still get used, however, despite the existence of the ones without. Moving to Linux won't change that sort of thing. People would still download the infested player (or whatever), even if a clean version existed.

  54. Agree that it is a good thing, not about standarts by Pecisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok, first of all, it's open source player, so it's really not a problem any more about prioritary codecs, about that it is coming from Real (king of bloated player), etc. Yes, Real codecs still will be closed and let them stay in that way if they want to be - it's not a main point this time. I hope at least they will ease distribution of their codecs so they could be included in distros and every distro won't require additional hacking for including them - as it is now. Yes, there are still their official player, but it is very outdated with it's Motif GUI.

    Second, there's no worry about it because Helix support Ogg Vorbis/Thedora codecs from the very begining. So, they are open source formats and will play in the Gstreamer enabled apps (Totem) as in Helix.

    If there are competition - that's good. Main goal for me in media players is support for patent-free and royality-free codecs. Helix support that. So I don't think that there is something to worry about.

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  55. Give it a run and enjoy the BBC by kforeman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Our business model is changed. We make our money on consumer services like Rhapsody, SuperPass and STARZ! on Real Movies and therefore don't need to pay our staff with software add-ons or advertising.

    Download the binary or source and take it for a spin.

    Kevin Foreman,
    GM, Helix
    RealNetworks, Inc.

    --
    Kevin Foreman
    1. Re:Give it a run and enjoy the BBC by Cylix · · Score: 3, Funny

      Welcome to the light side my son.

      It's a lot less darker and not so much full of evil over here.

      However, were going to need all of your blood.... it's for posterity so play nice.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    2. Re:Give it a run and enjoy the BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would love to enjoy the BBC, but trying to listen to http://www.bbc.co.uk/greek/gre.ram I'm told that it's an unsupported codec... It works fine under windows and linux with realplayer 8 though...

      (the link is found in http://www.bbcgreek.com)

      Thanks

    3. Re:Give it a run and enjoy the BBC by metamatic · · Score: 1

      If I could translate Real format audio into other formats, I might consider purchasing content in Real format.

      I will not purchase content that I can only play in RealPlayer.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  56. DVD support??? by Supp0rtLinux · · Score: 1

    My Windows Real Player can play DVDs... so does this mean that RH and Suse (Novell) can now soon ship with DVD player support? I certainly hope so...

  57. Hey, fuckhead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's the explanation for the spelling:
    Lunix is the OS for arrogant shitheads. Spelling it wrong inflames these shitheads (like you).

    Get an education:

    Lots of info 4 u, fag

    More specifically, watch this.

    1. Re:Hey, fuckhead. by skaffen42 · · Score: 0, Troll

      At least you can spell "fuckhead", but there is simply no way you can defend the use of "4 u". It's simply bad grammar. I guess everything I have been hearing about the miserable quality of our schools is true.

      I can only hope that when you finally pass through puberty your hormones will settle down and you can apply yourself to your schoolwork again. Otherwise I am afraid there here isn't much hope for you.

      --
      People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
    2. Re:Hey, fuckhead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      lol what duz

      Otherwise I am afraid there here isn't much hope for you.


      meen

      omg u r so superior d00d

      what wuz i thinking flaming u

      teech me ur wayz, obi wan of speling an gramer

      You are the very model of a modern asshat Lunix user. Congratulations! You've got the arrogance, superiority complex, and sense of humor that make CmdrTaco and michael proud! Now go forth and spread the word of Lunix superiority, annoying and repulsing potential converts with your amazingly obtuse HowTos!
    3. Re:Hey, fuckhead. by skaffen42 · · Score: 0, Troll

      You sound like some of the kids I went to school with. Getting bullied a lot? Girls not talking to you? Frustrated about nobody taking you seriously and so you are venting on Slashdot?

      Here is some advice: work hard at school and it will get better when you grow up.

      --
      People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
    4. Re:Hey, fuckhead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell are you continuing to feed this known troll? Are you that damned stupid? STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS, moron.

    5. Re:Hey, fuckhead. by skaffen42 · · Score: 1

      Hey, moron, I am amazed at your ability to identify ACs. How do you do that?

      Anyway, slow day at work so why not give some meaning to a poor little troll's life? Plus I stopped the idiot who modded my last two comments as trolls from doing some real damage. Personally I think that was time well spent! :)

      --
      People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
  58. Re:So I can get more..... by gaj · · Score: 1

    BS. Open-source has the same freedom as far as changing software and redistributing, it just allows more freedom as to how you license the code you choose to distribute.

  59. I don't need a player, but an editor by mm0mm · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I have absolutely no doubt that mplayer will remain in my system as a primary media player regardless of what helix will bring to the Linux desktop experience. And meantime, I am hoping to see NLE apps which offer features that are on par with Avid and FCP (mainactor is still low-key).

    No one can foresee how successful Helix will become, but I couldn't stop wondering about the possibility of Helix-based NLE. I don't care for Real as far as media format/codecs are concerned. But if GPL'd Helix (with no real codecs) has something to offer, that should be multimedia solutions to Linux.

    I may be too naive and optimistic to think about this, though.

    1. Re:I don't need a player, but an editor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  60. Realplayer as a standard by blanks · · Score: 1, Troll

    Do we really want this as a standard for linux media. I know there are many different media types out there, but from just a quality level I would think developers would spend time on other projects.

    Just the fact this is coming from real networks should be a reason to not support it, giving their track record as a company, and their products over the past 5 years.

    Will real be the first applicaiton on linux that will install spyware/bloatware/adware onto linux systems? I think so.

    1. Re:Realplayer as a standard by IANAAC · · Score: 1

      The last two distributions of SUSE (9.0 and 9.1) have included Real Player fully configured. As far as I can tell, there's no spyware/bloatware/adware. I doubt SUSE/Novell would allow future versions to include any malware either.

  61. Re:Chunks' by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But hey guess what; With the new Open Source GPL version everyone who thinks that Real is crap can now take the source code and improve it; making it so its not crap anymore."

    The realaudio codec isn't going to be GPL is it? How about the streaming-network stuff (cause of all problems) -- probably that won't be GPL either. We've got a GPL framework, and Real are probably hoping that we will all install their proprietary codecs into it, against which nobody will have any protection.

  62. Xine, mplayer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Silly question, but how does Helix compare to Xine and Mplayer as a "multimedia framework"?

    (It seems to me that Xine and Mplayer do a good job of supporting all sorts of different codecs, etc. I'm curious to understand what Helix brings to the table that these two don't.)

  63. Re:Obligatory picture by Orgazmus · · Score: 2, Funny

    Was that supposed to direct me to a site with ladies, or is firefox getting all naughty again? ;)

    --
    The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
  64. Does anyone see a link to EU sanctions? by Xtoffer · · Score: 1

    It's not a rethorical question, I'm realy wondering.

    EU suspended Microsoft sanctions on sunday (the sanctions: to sell an alternative without Media Player, share info about the innards of Win to open up competition). These sanctions would have been meet today (monday) or pay a fine of 500 euros (peanuts for MS). MS, as always, appealed and now can relax for years.

    Real Networks mayby realised this and is betting open software will even the ods.

  65. Re:Or just like the Ogg framework everywhere else. by dosius · · Score: 2, Informative

    But FFMPEG already does WMA, and quite well too.

    Moll.

    --
    What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
  66. Mod parent up by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Tim's pointed out one of the most important issues with the "safe" feeling some get from OSS. Even if you build everything from source, you're vulnerable unless you inspect and anlyize every source package yourself.

    Even the distro vendors have had stuff slip by, and they've got far more than one person keeping an eye on things.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  67. recent linux realplayer experience by capt.mellow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I went ahead and installed realplayer for linux, and was fairly pleased with the way it ran. I was leery, because of my experiences with realplayer on Windows years ago, but I have to say, it's decent now.

    1. Re:recent linux realplayer experience by vikman · · Score: 1

      Thank you. The focus for 1.0 of the player is to create a simple and fast player that focused on stability and ease-of-use than a multitude of features. We are close to realizing this goal. What we would love is for feedback from you and the many other users as to what you would like to see in the future. -- Vikram Dendi Program Manager and Project Lead Helix Player Project

      --
      --
  68. Re:So I can get more..... by dosius · · Score: 1

    Thought about a year ago there was a fuss about Linux Mandrake putting adware in their free-for-download distro.

    Moll.

    --
    What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
  69. How will Real make money from this? by JessLeah · · Score: 1

    I love free software; I love the GPL. But let's be honest here: producing (not using or doing other things with) such software isn't a great way to make money. Just look at how many years it took Red Hat to turn a modest profit-- and those were years where it was easily the #1 Linux distribution in the US.

    How will Real make money from this? If they won't, and I'm betting they won't, they will simply wither and die. Then we won't have any sort of a standard. We'll have yet another company survived by Microsoft, which won't help anyone (except, well, Microsoft)

  70. Re:Obligatory picture by radiophonic · · Score: 1

    Woohoo! Monday morning pr0n! Nice butt, but what's funny?

    --
    Whenever you read this sig someone's refrigerator light turns on.
  71. Plug in for itunes? by edgar_is_good · · Score: 1

    Forgive my ignorance, but does this mean someone will be able to write a Real plugin for itunes? I wanted to get that airport express to stream music to my living room stereo, but I like listening to NPR streaming which is in realplayer, and I'll need itunes to stream to a remote stereo. Or maybe someone's already written this?

    1. Re:Plug in for itunes? by bitrot42 · · Score: 1


      Does this remote stereo happen to have an FM tuner?

      And to answer your actual question, this shouldn't have any bearing on the itunes/realmedia issue. I suppose it does mean that Real is loosening up at least some of their IP, but a GPLed Helix is a far cry from an open RealMedia codec...

      --
      FIXME: Add a sig here
    2. Re:Plug in for itunes? by edgar_is_good · · Score: 1

      It does, but the remote alarm clock would have to be set earlier, and the remote job would have to end earlier, for me to use the FM tuner to listen to the shows I wanted to hear. Ah well, I'll just have to stick to google news I guess...

  72. Important point by ceswiedler · · Score: 1

    So the framework will be GPL, and not the codecs. But will Real at least allow distros like Red Hat to freely distribute the binary proprietary codecs? It would be a big deal IMO if Fedora came out of the box with the ability to play all modern Real steams.

    You know, guys, sometimes you don't get a company's source code for free. A decent, modern, compatible media player for Linux would be great, even if the codecs are still proprietary.

  73. Helix licensing just fine. by robla · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, it's not "doomed to fail" any more than MySQL is "doomed to fail" (which switched from LGPL to GPL, IIRC). Having a means of charging for making proprietary applications means that all people who modify/augment and distribute also contribute one way or another. Either they contribute by making their application open source (adding to the ecosystem), or they contribute financially by licensing the code. In any case, they help perpetuate the platform.

    It sucks that we have to compete on so many fronts, but we've been doing it for 9 years in the face of many, many pundits talking about how we're "doomed to fail".

    We've gotten tremendous traction in the embedded software space. Many, many, many handset makers have licensed Helix for use in their devices. We have a strong lead in the nascent Linux mobile space with our deal with Motorola. With our announcements today, we're making a great start into the Linux desktop space.

    Rob Lanphier
    Development Support Manager
    RealNetworks

    1. Re:Helix licensing just fine. by augustz · · Score: 1

      Ahh, didn't realize I'd soon be getting spam and "important alerts" on my mobile phone. This sucks! Real I think managed to make a pretty good name for itself as the scummiest, let's take over your desktop and flood you with junk type company there was.

      I remember 5-6 years ago now I gave them my address and I was bombarded with junk, and there was simply no way to get off (this is when I still considered them a reasonable company). Sad to see strong companies like RedHat and Novell joining with these guys.

    2. Re:Helix licensing just fine. by joeljkp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Troll. Give them a chance. When you start getting Real spam on your phone, then complain.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    3. Re:Helix licensing just fine. by tepples · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The difference is that MySQL is a server, using interprocess communication to communicate with proprietary programs. This means that programs that use MySQL don't have to link to MySQL.

      How does Helix Player interface to its codecs? Is it through linking, in the .dll/.so sense? If so, don't all codecs have to be free software?

    4. Re:Helix licensing just fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can make whatever deals you want.

      Number of people that use your software Number of people that will never use your software

      It's funny seeing you Real weenies get so defensive about such a technically immature project.

    5. Re:Helix licensing just fine. by aichpvee · · Score: 0

      Even if there isn't spam the quality of their software is crap. So who really cares if they spam?

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    6. Re:Helix licensing just fine. by HRbnjR · · Score: 1
      Either they contribute by making their application open source (adding to the ecosystem), or they contribute financially by licensing the code.


      Helix is closer to glibc than MYSQL. This has no pretty much degenerated into the same problem as we have with QT. The community wants freedom not just for users, but for corporations to also create and sell proprietary software for our free Linux desktop, without buying a licence from you. Helix needs to be LGPL'd.

      The hypocracy is that Real still has their proprietary codec. Can a competitor to Real (like Microsoft), do as Real has done, and write a proprietary codec for Helix without having to GPL it or purchase a Helix Licence from Real? No.

      If GStreamer becomes THE media framework for Linux... corporations are all *free* to create and sell their own proprietary codecs - it's a level playing field for all. However, if Helix becomes THE framework... corporations need to *purchase* a licence from Real. *free* vs *purchase*, see the difference?

      And as far as contributions to the ecosystem...you want users of the free software ecosystem to contribute financially back to *Real*. Thats bollox. With LGPL it means if they change the framework, they must contribute their changes back to the framework, and that is the true ecosystem.

      LGPL Helix - Real can still make money from it's codec, just NOT from the shared media framework.
  74. I felt a great disturbance in the Force... by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 1
    Specifically, Red Hat and Novell will standardize on the 100% open source Helix Player as the leading multimedia framework for their Linux desktops

    I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

    -truth

    --

    I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

  75. Binary codecs and the GPL by Dolda2000 · · Score: 1
    I've seen many comments saying that the codecs will remain proprietary.

    How does this work out with the GPL'd framework? AFAIK, the GPL explicitly prevents you from linking proprietary code (that is not part of the standard system libraries) into the running process image of a GPL'd program.

    1. Re:Binary codecs and the GPL by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      Wait, so by that logic, does MPlayer violate the GPL (since you can use proprietary codecs with MPlayer)?

      --
      Why not fork?
    2. Re:Binary codecs and the GPL by Dolda2000 · · Score: 1

      Well, I dunno. I was merely wondering how it works out.

  76. Real Responds to how we make money by kforeman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We want to extend our 400 million unique registered users base to include every Linux, Windows and Mac desktop, and every mobile and living-room device. By doing so, we can sell system software, like the Helix Universal Server, to enterprises who want to reach their employees, customers, and partners as well as setting the landscape for selling added value services, like RealOne SuperPass and STARZ! Ticket on Real Movies.

    Having Red Hat and Novell qualify and distribute the RealPlayer for Linux as part of the their Linux Desktop increases the Helix / RealPlayer distribution and guarantees the best of breed solution for Red Hat, Novell and Real users.

    --
    Kevin Foreman
  77. Re:Important point - Yes Red Hat will allow by kforeman · · Score: 1

    Yes, Red Hat will ship the GPL'ed Helix Player and then offer users a no-cost upgrade to RealPlayer 10 for Linux, which adds to the Helix Player the non-open source components such as RealAudio/RealVideo, MP3 and Flash.

    --
    Kevin Foreman
  78. One key advantage of mplayer for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can use mplayer to convert Microsoft audio files to wave files which I can then convert to MP3 for my MP3 player.

    I doubt Helix has this ability so mplayer will still be on my system.

  79. It's about acceptance by radiophonic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's about acceptance, not about opening the source.

    Real is a company who has continually annoyed many customers (and potential customers) with a barrage of misleading links, advertisements and spy ware in the past. Regardless of the fact that the Linux "version" of Real Player did not contain the junkware, the fact still remains: Real has bad karma and opening up the code will not make end users more reluctant to use the software.

    Making the software GPL does not help you instantly erase your past and judging from most of the comments here, many are still quite cynical in regards to Real Networks.

    Are you more willing to accept Real now because they've GPL'd some code?

    --
    Whenever you read this sig someone's refrigerator light turns on.
    1. Re:It's about acceptance by vikman · · Score: 1

      Don't accept Real and Helix because code has been GPL'd. Accept because we are making a sincere effort to make Linux better and more powerful. We are working hard to be a good citizen in the Linux world and we are throwing our (not inconsiderable weight) in the multimedia world behind Linux and opensource. Accept because the more backing Linux gets today, the stronger this community becomes.

      --
      Vikram Dendi
      Program Manager & Project Lead
      Helix Player Project

      --
      --
  80. Re:Great! by joeljkp · · Score: 1

    I having some trouble understanding this. RealPlayer did some ugly things with their software a few years ago, during the dot-com boom (who didn't?), but they've cleaned up their act, released some excellent software (I use RP10 every day), and open-sourced their main framework. What's left to complain about?

    I, for one, will be mighty happy to get a stable, mature, free media framework on my Linux system.

    --
    WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
  81. OSS Zombies joined by Real. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    long has Microsoft been in the habit of killing competitors, but nowadays they don't die anymore - they just go open source and roam the earth as undead souls, restless, impossible to kill.

    Netscape/Mozilla as the oldest of them, OpenOffice the big evil lich king overlord, Helix a fresh recruit... in time, the army of dead will rise until they have their sweet revenge on the killer... poetic justice...

    hmmm... maybe i _have_ seen too many trashy movies.

  82. Re:Codecs contain spyware - Real Responds by kforeman · · Score: 5, Informative

    First, the Helix Player plays only 100% open source codecs, like Ogg Verbix and Theora.

    Second, the RealPlayer 10 for Linux adds to the Helix Player the non-open source components such as RealAudio/RealVideo, MP3 and Flash.

    Third, you are perpetuating an urban myth. Our Windows player contains no spyware and never has. Yes, someone filed suit on us, and it was thrown out of court for being a false accusation.

    Fourth, our business model is to sell back end webcast transmission software and consumer services like SuperPass and STARZ! on Real Movies.

    Fifth, over 50 semiconductor companies have licensed RealAudio and RealVideo SOURCE CODE for optimizing their nect gen chip sets. I would hope you agree that Intel, TI, Motorola, etc. engineers would not tolerate this nonsense.

    Rest easy and enjoy you free player on us.

    --
    Kevin Foreman
  83. I already have many frameworks by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    For all of you free software developers who have been waiting for a true GPLed industry standard AV framework, we look forward to working with you."

    Er... why would anyone be waiting for this? From the GStreamer and Arts frameworks to players like MPlayer and Xine that are frameworks in and of themselves, there are already many "true GPLed industry standard AV frameworks" that have been available for years.

    Real really missed the boat IMO. Likely the only reason commercial distros are partnering with them, is that Real likely has licensing agreement sot legally use formats like MP3 and MPEG4, so it imdemnifys them from potential lawsuits.

  84. Re:Codecs GPL'd? - Real Responds by kforeman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Guys, there are two important messages/audiences here: developers and users.

    1) Developers are looking for a standard GPL'd AV framework to built their applications. By adding the GPL to our Helix Player and with Red Hat, Novell, Sun and Turbolinux's support, we hope to catalyze the linux desktop industry to bring our better and faster time to market AV-based applications. We want to avoid a KDE/GNOME fracturing of the industry.

    2) Users get the best of both worlds. Besides the 100% GPL'd Helix Player (which plays Vorbis and Theora), the distros will ship a no-cost upgrade the RealPlayer 10 for Linux. The RealPlayer includes the non-open sourced component of MP3, Flash, RealAudio 10 and RealVideo 10.

    So, yes the codecs aren't open sourced (We don't own al the IP of RealAudio and RealVideo, and therefore can't even consider GPLing them), develoers and users still getthe best of both worlds.

    Enjoy the new players.

    --
    Kevin Foreman
  85. Helix doesnt play realmedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need Realplayer to play realmedia files. The new versions will be built on Helix, but unfortunately not open source.

  86. Re:Allow access to subscription services? ASAP by kforeman · · Score: 1

    As soon as we possibly can. This is our business model.

    If I could give you access to subscritpion services today, I would.

    Join the Helix project https://player.helixcommunity.org/2004/unix/ and let the product team hear your feedback directly.

    --
    Kevin Foreman
  87. Death of XMMS? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    If Novell and Red Hat combine to offer a supported Linux media player, will that relegate XMMS, the current leading player, to the dustbin of history? Will a combination of faster growth of the increasing userbase, and attrition of fleeing XMMS users leave the old WinAmp clone so far behind that all its skins and plugins are just a memory?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  88. Re:Allow access to subscription services? ASAP by joeljkp · · Score: 1

    Look guys, the head of the Helix project is straight-talking, follows the /. discussion, is supporting Linux, and is a subscriber. What else can you ask for?

    Thanks, Real, for supporting the community.

    --
    WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
  89. Re:Codecs contain spyware - Real Responds by joeljkp · · Score: 1

    Before the dogs come for blood, it's Ogg Vorbis, not Verbix.

    --
    WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
  90. Re:Important point - Yes Red Hat will allow by ceswiedler · · Score: 1

    So Helix doesn't contain any non-free codecs, and they can't be added? I know the non-free codecs aren't GPL, but can Red Hat distribute the codecs with the GPL'd Helix player?

  91. Re:Allow access to subscription services? ASAP by say · · Score: 3, Funny
    Look guys, the head of the Helix project is straight-talking, follows the /. discussion, is supporting Linux, and is a subscriber. What else can you ask for?

    A job?

    --
    Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
  92. What about non-PPC non-x86 devices? by tepples · · Score: 1

    or a meta package that depends on the player, and just downloads the codecs.

    First of all, running the codecs in emulation on an architecture other than x86 or PowerPC will most likely not keep up with the frame rate.

    Second, if the Helix player is GPL, doesn't that mean all codecs have to be GPL as well?

    1. Re:What about non-PPC non-x86 devices? by pyros · · Score: 1
      First of all, running the codecs in emulation on an architecture other than x86 or PowerPC will most likely not keep up with the frame rate.

      True, but I was just responding to the comment that Real wants to use the laziness factor to encourage people to use the full proprietary player that has these codecs bundled with it. If someone packages a meta package to download the codecs, that would remove the laziness factor.

      Second, if the Helix player is GPL, doesn't that mean all codecs have to be GPL as well?

      No. The codec is just a shared library with routines to code/decode the data. The player just loads the library and calls the routines contained in it. If anything, that would more make the player a derivative of the codec.

  93. Re:Codecs GPL'd? - Real Responds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your software offered nothing new months ago, and it offers nothing new now. So I'll enjoy not using your new player, much as I've enjoyed not using it until this point. You can make whatever deals you want with whatever companies, but no one is going to use it.

  94. Linux can now feel the pain by banzai51 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Misery must love company. I can't think of anything worse that could happen to the linux community.

    1. Re:Linux can now feel the pain by banzai51 · · Score: 1

      What? You're really going to stand there with a straight face and tell me Real is a company on the up and up?

  95. Non-x86 barrier to entry by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Second, the RealPlayer 10 for Linux adds to the Helix Player the non-open source components

    Will the proprietary legacy codec binaries provided by RealNetworks run on Linux on any CPU architecture other than x86? If not, how much Intel stock does your company own? I'm guessing that because RealNetworks maintains the Intel codecs for free while the "50 semiconductor companies" have to pay both RealNetworks for the source code and their own engineers for the porting effort, non-x86 platforms have a huge barrier to entry.

  96. What are these corpocrats smoking by heroine · · Score: 1

    The standard multimedia framework is MPlayer. I've never seen anything play back on Helix framework. By definition, you can't benefit from frameworks in Linux multimedia because there's no money to outsource with. In Linux multimedia everyone has to implement. There is no concept of speccing out a framework and buying implementations from overseas, which makes pure frameworks like Helix quite worthless and implementations like MPlayer ubiquitous. These corporate managers seem to be in a different universe.

  97. My universe is collapsing ! by LordPixie · · Score: 1

    What ?!? Real is no longer Evil ? For the past several years this has been a foundation of The Internet. Next thing you know, Microsoft and AOL will release software that is not a bloated PC catastrophe.

    The Internet is now officially one step away from unravelling the enitre universe.


    --LordPixie

    p.s.Jokes aside, I'm more than glad to see a new business model over at Real.

  98. Codec Exception(tm) by tepples · · Score: 1

    Doesn't mplayer's license have that exception allowing use of proprietary codecs with mplayer? Are any mplayer developers reading this?

  99. Gstreamer needs to get stable by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 1

    I am hopeful for the future of Gstreamer, but right now it is very buggy, and probably not reliable enough for a full corporate distro to endorse.

  100. GPL but no codecs? by DeVilla · · Score: 1

    I keep seeing that the frame work and/or GUI is GPL, but not the codecs. Don't the codecs dynamically link in?

  101. Re:XIne, Mplayer... & Overlords by mnemotronic · · Score: 1
    Being a bit out of touch with Earth events recently, I decided to investigate the whole "I for one, welcome our new *.* overlords" phrase and came up with this analysis on Mark Liberman's language Log, along with other bits here.

    I hope you find it as moderatly fascinating as I did.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  102. Re:Codecs GPL'd? - Real Responds by plugger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A seperate issue from the availability of codecs is the lack of HTML rendering in the Linux Real clients.

    My wife is a Big Brother fan (don't ask me why), and the site requires the Windows client in order to login to the premium stream. The reason is almost certainly the availability of a HTML renderer for Real to use. Last year, I managed to login using windows and copy the cookie across to the equivalent location for RealOne beta. To my utter astonishment and satisfaction, it worked. No such luck this year.

    I understand that in Windows the IE control is available, but in order for Real to be successful, it must be fully functional on all platforms. Please don't take this as a flame, I'm excited about seeing a nicely styled, functional and well-behaved X client for Real, but I'm sorry to say that my current difficulties reaching paid content makes me wish media providers were not using Real.

  103. Re:Codecs GPL'd? - Real Responds by 87C751 · · Score: 1

    Ya know, developers also like packages that aren't actively compile-hostile. When you get to the point that I can do 'make menuconfig && make clean && make && make install', call me. That bozotic build environment for Helix is a major PITA.

    --
    Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
  104. realplayer from the BBC? by timothy · · Score: 1

    You mention that you use a real player from the BBC to play real and mp3 formats; can you elaborate on that? I've never heard of such a thing, or at least can't recall it, and a scan on the BBC site hasn't yielded anything ...

    Mplayer as provided on Mepis works for me to play some things but not others ... there might be ways around this, but I just put Mepis on this laptop last night and like you hate tweaking things for hours of frustration ;)

    (tangential: I found that to play DVDs on my Toshiba Satellite laptop with the version of Mepis I downloaded, I think it's 2004-06-3b, the only thing that works is VLC. Xine crashes after flashing its GUI on the screen, mplayer brings up a gui but doesn't actually play the disk. VLC works great though, after I downloaded the decss library, and VLC itself of course.)

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    1. Re:realplayer from the BBC? by zogger · · Score: 1

      maybe about 1.5 months ago or so we had a thread here and someone mentioned it, that bbc had arm wrestled real into letting them distribute a less bogus player, and there was a link so I mashed it and went and got it. That player works well for me(FC2), the one I got from reals page going directly didn't. who knows, maybe it's the same player, but I trieds both back to back, the 10beta didn't work at all for me, but the bbc realplayer9 worked exactly like it should. It's also the only player I have that mozilla will actually open up all by itself. But, I will re-emphasize, I don't know for a *fact* it's different, just the one I have appears to not have any popups or ads or anything with it like I was used to seeing with previous versions of realplayer I have had over the years. Allegedly I have an xmms plugin that will play windows streams, it's there, i see the plugin, I know I have windows codecs installed, never got it to work though. Oh well...

      I have realplayer 2.0 I think on an old mac laptop, them was the days, 14.4 modem and it worked, simple design, little square window, mash play, it played. I will now google for bbc link...... ......this might be the correct page, I just don't remember if this was the link I used or not. It looks sorta familiar though.

      Never tried that VLC yet, but if it uses shared libraries and codecs, I got enough of them things hanging around this box I should be able to translate and encode in klingon to ape-english, with subtitles in dogspeak. Ya, mplayer (gmplayer) just flash opens a screen then crashes. xine turns on and looks cool and won't play squat. Rhythm box opens something looks like a web page from netscape 3 then won't play anything I've tried. xmms just opens and plays, but not all the formats I need, and I have to trik it into playing a url by saving the url first to a file, then playing that file after I browse to it, I've never gotten xmms to just go play an url directly with it's own built in "play such and such" window. It plays though, that's the main point, and getting the mp3 plugin to replace the placeholder plugin was easy. mplayer scares me, it got 6 volumes of manpages to make it work that looks the encylopedia discordia. I'm sure it's a slick rig, if you are a developer and know how to do all that stuff. It's like, man, I got a linux box that works almost for everthing I need, I am chicken to screw it up, so unless I can find a binary now that I read on pages that other people successfuly use with no probs, I just don't bother.

      In a way, that's a linux success story, from what I gather years ago you had to be a unix guru plus a programmer to get it to work at all, and here's an old mac click and not much else guy who can make 95% of linux work with just clicking. cool beans, my thanks to the creators and developers. And I'm not complaining, I am most greatful for what I have here. I'm only lacking the ability to seamlessly play some windows streams from some radio stations I want to hear, and some other stuff like be able to get pictures from my cheap usb camera without having a serious kernel panic. That's the last two problems I have, which I am sure will go away next coupla releases or so. I'm not worried about it.

  105. Xiph Verb Rendering Codec? -- Explination by Inhibit · · Score: 1

    No offense, but Ogg Verbix sounds like some kind of translator. It think you mean Ogg Vorbis. Like the characters from Terry Pratchet's "Small Gods".

    And hopefully you've turned off that fun "report computer type for maximum enjoyment" option, or whatever it was. Allthough it's not tinfoil hat worthy it *is* irritating to have it checked off without being asked prior to using the application.

    --
    You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
  106. Re:Codecs GPL'd? - Real Responds by Deusy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Spoken like a true salesman. Buzzwords and well practised lines.

    "We hope to catalyze the linux desktop industry..."

    Rubbish, you're looking to manoeveure Helix into a blossoming linux desktop industry. The linux desktop industry was fine before Helix, will be fine with Helix, and fine after Helix. You're just another company catching the ride on the increasingly popular linux train. (That's not a bad thing or a criticism.)

    "...to bring our better and faster time to market AV-based applications."

    How are your codecs any "better" and "faster time to market" than Theora or Vorbis? Yes, you support those, but so does many other media players. In real (sic) terms, how is Helix any better than the GStreamer framework or mature apps like MPlayer?

    We want to avoid a KDE/GNOME fracturing of the industry.

    You mean, you want to dominate the linux AV industry? Or you want to provide a desktop neutral solution? MPlayer and Totem work fine in both KDE and GNOME for me. I'm quite unsure as to what fracturing you refer to.

    Throwing salespeak at the crowd is all well and good, but could you at least make it meaningful and specific rather than a few buzzwords / hot topics thrown together?

    --

    Free Gamer - Free games list and commentary

  107. one hand stabs the other... by poptones · · Score: 1
    Whoopee. So one giant corporation points out how a higher quality product can only obtain legitimacy by tying itself to yet another giant (or wannabe giant) corporation.

    I got (re)involved with linux specifically to work on the gstreamer project. Sure I'm biased, but I got involved with gstreamer specifically because real sucked from the start and we don't need linux to evolve attached to yet another corporatized "media framework."

  108. MOD PARENT UP by Deusy · · Score: 0, Redundant

    MOD PARENT UP

    It's an important point in reply to the FUD that preceeds it.

    --

    Free Gamer - Free games list and commentary

  109. Re:Codecs contain spyware - Real Responds by noldrin · · Score: 1

    I imagine something useful will be built on top of Helix eventually. So far I've never found a file to play on it, as I already have more useful players that can handle the OSS files, so as far as I know it might not even work. What the open source community really needs is Free Software solutions to video, and get people pushing it for net content. The reason people what Free Code that they can compile themselves and not trust the Real, is once again we don't know if it's modified code going to these semiconductor companies or what. Windows has taught us the dangers of letting hidden code run amuck on your system. I'm thinking of starting an entire business around the cleaning of malware off machines. Yes, I use Real Player sometimes, but I try not to. I also consider it potentially hostile code and take certain actions to try and be protected.

  110. Why not GPL all the Helix Community Platform? by Hills*(B+D) · · Score: 1

    Why isn't the GPL applied as a license option for all of the Helix Community Platform instead of just the client player? Adding Theora support to Helix Producer and Server released under the GPL would provide a more complete AV framework. Why limit the license change to the client player only?

  111. Re:Great! by aichpvee · · Score: 0

    Maybe the fact that their media player sucks worse than windows media player, is bloated, and nothing they EVER do will make up for killing vivo? How's that for a start?

    --
    The Farewell Tour II
  112. Re:Codecs GPL'd? - Real Responds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, kforeman, time to come clean. Your software is 100% Open Source in the same way as frozen shrimp is "fresh".

    What you want to do is give away something that drives a wedge into the Linux user base. It's a trojan horse, like the first hit of smack for free. You hope that people will eventually choose to pay for your $$$ codecs just so they only have to have one media player installed - and if it's not Linux users you plan to make pay it's a ploy aimed at shoring up provision of content in Real's proprietary formats.

    "Look!" you say, "everyone has our player! More than Windows Media Player even!" "Sure they can view your content, they just need to install a free codec pack..."

    It's not a stupid move, and it is far-sighted, but at least be honest about it.

    Users don't get the best of both worlds at all. They get a long, dragged out death of Real instead of the quick tidy death we've all been hoping for. They get content still served in your shitty format whenever they visit NPR etc. and they say "fuck it, I don't want to hear it that much!" - they get BUFFERING...

    We don't own al the IP of RealAudio and RealVideo, and therefore can't even consider GPLing

    And you're going to pretend that you would? Oh please... and then where would your company be? Without being locked into a closed format nobody would use your software at all and you know it. Obviously this is the part that isn't Open Source - the useful part, that would let us listen to and view content from institutions that your sales droids have suckered into using your codecs and servers.

    Oh hooray for companies that do lip service to Open Source while attempting to maintain a stranglehold on content through proprietary means. I hope Microsoft kills your company soon - I'd rather see a continuation of the fragmented choices available now than this kind of con job.

  113. Re:Codecs contain spyware - Real Responds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a liar or you have a conveniently short memory. As someone who has installed your software and never will again - even though it was 1996! - I can say that Real DEFINITELY installed spyware. The term wasn't common at the time but that's what it did - yeah, real pioneers, you guys.

    Enjoy your free player that doesn't actually do anything useful (until you agree to toss Helix and install the closed source version).

  114. great article. by twitter · · Score: 1
    I wanted to post it myself, but you beat me to it.

    STEVE LOHR, clearly understands free software and software in general better than the average reporter. The first word of the article is "GNU Linux". He then goes on to frame the major players and background the significance in light of recent EU anti-trust rulings. More importantly, he understands that Linux is Ready for the Desktop:

    For the Linux desktop, a number of applications are already available and more are in development. These include word processing, spreadsheet, database presentation, e-mail and Web browsing software. "For 80 percent of the people in the world, Linux is now a perfectly fine desktop environment," a leading open-source advocate, Bruce Perens, said.

    Good stuff for people to read in the New York Times.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  115. Re:Codecs GPL'd? - Real Responds by aichpvee · · Score: 0

    VIVO KILLER!!!!

    --
    The Farewell Tour II
  116. Re:Great! by joeljkp · · Score: 1

    Eh, I'm not convinced. I like their player better than WMP, and I never like vivo.

    --
    WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
  117. Re:Codecs contain spyware - Real Responds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Third, you are perpetuating an urban myth. Our Windows player contains no spyware and never has. Yes, someone filed suit on us, and it was thrown out of court for being a false accusation.

    Yeah, so what if it didn't contain spyware. It asked you to give away personal data and preferences every single f****ing time you started it. The "cancel" buttons were the last ones you'd see in the dialogs, plus even if I marked "don't ask again" it did.

    Every other player I used wasn't such a bitch about marketing. You people just went too far.

  118. Re:Codecs GPL'd? - Real Responds by metamatic · · Score: 1

    Let me export from Real formats to other formats, and I'll consider touching your Helix code and using Real encoded audio.

    Until then, it looks like Helix is just another attempt to snare people into using write-only data formats.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  119. Re:Codecs contain spyware - Real Responds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does your employer know that some asshat is pretending to represent it? I'm sure some higher-ups would be mighty pissed off if they knew you were posting shit like this on slashdot.

    Hmmm...

  120. Re:Codecs GPL'd? - Real Responds by tempest303 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Man, could you have been more of a jerk to that guy? How about just a little tact?

    I have three letters for you: G P L. Where's the problem here? Now that Helix is GPL, the community can start looking at Xine, GStreamer, and Helix on their technical merits alone.

    So how exactly does Real GPL'ing Helix make them Evil(TM)?

  121. Eh? Ogg *is* in Helix by ReKleSS · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's on the vorbis.com and helix community main pages - Helix now has support for both Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora. See Here.
    -ReK

    --
    md5sum -c reality.md5
    reality: FAILED
    md5sum: WARNING: 1 of 1 computed checksum did NOT match
  122. Re:Codecs GPL'd? - Real Responds by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    > Besides the 100% GPL'd Helix Player (which plays Vorbis and Theora),
    > the distros will ship a no-cost upgrade the RealPlayer 10 for Linux.

    Translation from marketing to english:

    Helix is crap but it was the wedge needed to get RedHat and Novell to ship RealPlayer 10.

    Seriously, if you want us to quit laughing and pay attention to what you are saying you have to answer the some of the questions we care about.

    How do WE (as users and/or developers) benefit from Helix?

    Does it allow us to play a single file or stream we can't already play?

    Does it provide a better framework to develop in?

    If so, is it enough better to justify refactoring the current extensive codebases of gstreamer. mplayer, xine, vlc, etc. into Helix?

    > We want to avoid a KDE/GNOME fracturing of the industry.

    How is introducing yet another multimedia framework not fracturing the industry vs. joining one of the existing projects such as gstreamer?

    Please, if you wish to engage the OS/FS communities you will need to lose the marketing speak, we aren't the typical idiot management types.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  123. The RPM cannot be installed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tried to install Real Player using the RPM
    RealPlayer-0.4.0.186-20040615.i586.rpm
    and failed. I get an error message:
    "MD5 digest: BAD Expected(217edc14851bc6e9cf08e4862e998322) != (db09765bc35a5764b4a2015ec99e482f)"
    every time. I downloaded three times. The size matches (7626826) but not the MD5 key. I am running Red Hat 9. Did anybody succeed?

  124. Re: mplayer by Kurrelgyre · · Score: 1

    How about a usable UI that doesn't make my eyes bleed after 5 minutes?

  125. Re:Codecs contain spyware - Real Responds by Erik+Fish · · Score: 1

    Our Windows player contains no spyware and never has.

    Of course it didn't contain spyware; It was spyware! As the Anonymous Coward above points out: Real just about invented spyware-as-product. I haven't used RealPlayer Windows in many years however I will bet you any amount of money that even today it is not reasonably possible to open the fucking thing without hitting an IP address owned by Real Networks or one of its affiliates/sponsors.

    RealPlayer Windows is "not spyware" the same way that the "v1agr@" ad in my inbox is "n0t sp@m": Term redefinition.

  126. OS = FS by Sunnan · · Score: 1
    it just allows more freedom as to how you license the code you choose to distribute.

    Not really. The OSI tries to work with debian-legal and the FSF to make sure that the three groups licence-lists are the same; there's been a few mistakes and (thus) disrepancies over the years, such as the VIM license which was at one time approved by the FSF but not the two other groups, but mostly Open Source and Free Software amounts to the same thing. (Two very different presentations of that thing though, and two different groups.)
  127. I really welcome a single framework for media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too many of the current media players are just that. They are a self contained set of codexes and an application to use those codexes.

    What I want to see is a single media framework across all desktops and all operating systems, including windows, mac, bsd and linux, which can be added as a 3rd party option that allows us to have a fixed API to program our applications against.

    So that you can just add a new codex to your system and any application, including those previously installed can just use it. This means that you add a new video format and instantly it is seen in every media application in Gnome, KDE and the like.

    So that you can write an application to run on top of the framework to view media, or an application to convert the media from one format to another format.

    This will allow thousands of people to write hundreds of codexes and just drop them into a framework. On the other side hundreds of applications can be written that will still work years from now, even with formats that we know nothing at all about at this point.

    Overall this means that 3 sets of programmers can all do less work and get more return.

    The codex writers can just concentrate on getting out the best converters.

    The framework people can do the best they can to provide a cross platform cross desktop framework that has the set of functions needed for media work.

    Finally the applications programmers can fill everyones needs with a lot of applications fitted to specific needs, without even concerning themselves about any specific formats. If a new format is added, it just shows up on a list.

  128. Re:Codecs contain spyware - Real Responds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our Windows player contains no spyware and never has. Yes, someone filed suit on us, and it was thrown out of court for being a false accusation.

    ... right. whatever you say, O.J.

  129. Re:Codecs GPL'd? - Real Responds by mikefe · · Score: 1

    That's not the point. From what I can tell, Helix isn't meant to add anything you couldn't do before, it's Real's attempt to cash in on the developer base in the OSS community.

    Now that Helix is GPL, Real can copy any other GPL code into their client and use GPLed libs, which drastically reduces their maintenance costs.

    Now they can put more resources into their codec, and marketing which can't do anything but help everyone, since it's not a MS locked in format.

    --
    There: Something at a specific location.
    Their: Owned by someone.
    Please make sure your english compiles.
  130. No DVD, no download. by Not-a-Neg · · Score: 1
    The availability of RealPlayer 10 is only useful to a small subset of linux users that have any desire to listen RA feeds. I was personally a subscriber to the Radio OpenPass, but between Bastard-Bush(no jobs=no money) and (Buffering), I got fed up and dropped it. The ads never bothered me, although the message center refusing to die did irk me a little.

    IMHO the one thing a commercially developed media player needs, to get any notice on Linux is DVD support. It's the one thing all geeks need, and the one thing that would make me eager to download and try out your latest player.

    I don't think most people have any desire to download Helix, or anything based on it right now, since they've already got MPlayer/Xine/Etc... isntalled and humming along nicely. About the only thing you can hope for is that enough people will try out your latest player, when it's included free and pre-installed with future linux distros, to make it successful/respected.

    --
    -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
  131. Real Export Codec for QuickTime by MacDork · · Score: 1

    Speaking of Real and QuickTime, I was just made aware of this little gem a couple of days ago. It allows you to export movies to Real format from within QuickTime Player Pro. Now if there were only a decoder component, I could toss Real Player for good...

    1. Re:Real Export Codec for QuickTime by suckmysav · · Score: 1

      Now if there were only a decoder component, I could toss Real Player for good.

      If you are looking for a Windows media player that plays Real media based streams and files, then you should look no further than here;

      --
      "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
    2. Re:Real Export Codec for QuickTime by suckmysav · · Score: 1

      Well, that worked well, NOT

      Try again

      http://home.hccnet.nl/h.edskes/finalbuilds.htm

      PS. How the hell do you embed urls on slashdot anayway?

      --
      "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
  132. Re:Codecs contain spyware - Real Responds by forkazoo · · Score: 1

    Disclaimer : I am not a Real Basher, but I am taking issue. I like the new direction for the company and the Player.

    Regarding the Third... Others have already taken issue with it, but I'd like to add my own two cents. Whether or not RealPlayer was spyware is a matter of definition. While I am very glad to see that Real is taking a firm stance in support of the consumer, and has streamlined the player, I think it is disingenuous for you to make the claim that Real has never shipped spyware. While you may be able to justify the claim by using a strict definition to convince yourself, many will remain unconvinced.

    Ultimately, the important thing isn't whether or not you shipped spyware in the past (by any definition.) What matters is Real's behavior in the here and now. The very tangible efforts being made to gain the trust of consumers are welcome, but questionable denials *DO NOT BUILD TRUST*. The company's stance would be better served by quietly admitting that previous generations of RealPlayer were "nowehere near as awesome as the new improved blah blah blah," instead of trying to convince people that the sour taste left in their mouths isn't real. We can taste it. Don't rub it in, or we will write you off.

    Thank you for your time.

  133. What is it with this "experience" shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "the rapidly maturing Linux desktop experience"

    I just want a quality toolset that does what I tell it to and stays out of my way. If I want an "experience" I'll go to fucking DisneyLand!

  134. So how long before Helix is in Ogg? by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    And will it be called "Ogg Real"?

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  135. Re:Codecs GPL'd? --- UGH it's 2004! Do better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's an old saying:
    "If carpenters built houses like programmers built programs,
    civilization would be destroyed by the first woodpecker that came along."
    Sadly its true, and both "closed source" (think Microsoft), and
    open source projects are tragically devolving at a quickening pace
    into a horribly unmaintainable, untrustable mess.

    Sometimes "less is more"

    I think a lot of people are missing one of the big desirability points about
    open source, as well as about what appropriate modern features of a standardized codec, media player framework, web browser, or other such user application should be.

    We're forgetting SECURITY, TRUSTABILITY, AUDITABILITY, RELIABILITY, et. al.!

    Look at all the vulnerabilities of things like Outlook / Outlook Express,
    Internet Explorer, Media Player, MS Word / Office and also essentially
    identical problems with UNIX things like SENDMAIL, BIND, various
    Mail User Agents like KMAIL, Acrobat Reader, et. al.

    The single biggest problem of application usability these days goes way beyond
    'Adware' / 'Spyware' / 'Banners', 'Buffering', it is due to the insecurity
    and untrustability of the applications and all the derivative libraries,
    system calls, codecs, helper programs, et. al.

    It is a serious security risk to play *any* media file, open *any* WWW site,
    run *any* multimedia program, et. al. since not only is the application's
    integrity itself in question, but also the integrity of the
    shared libraries, DLLs, CODECs, device drivers, et. al that it may access.

    A *meaningful* improvements in any new multimedia platform or application
    would be:

    0) "Design By Contract" principles used for all architecture/engineering.


    Design by Contract: The Lessons of Ariane
    http://archive.eiffel.com/doc/manuals/tech nology/c ontract/ariane/page.html

    1) Reliability, Trustability, Robustness.
    Just looking at my personal experience and the other
    threads it's clear that there's a huge mess with things like multimedia
    player applications crashing, core dumping, taking down the whole PC,
    or at least simply inexplicably failing to play / handle various input
    files/streams. It simply should not be POSSIBLE to crash a program or
    the system based on even corrupt/incompatible media inputs. If it
    can crash the program then it's HIGHLY LIKELY that in the worst case
    it's a weak application that can crash the system or expose it to things
    like trojans/viruses because of faulty input/error handling.
    "If it can possibly fail, add input checking, and exception/error handling"

    2) NO BLOAT! Thanks to the rampant bugs, memory leaks, resource
    hogging it's not at all uncommon to see even my most powerful systems
    brought to a grinding halt by browsers/multimedia players/etc.
    Is it REALLY NECESSARY to have applications that end up swapping because
    they're using hundreds of megabytes of VM just to have a few or a few
    dozen instances 'open' on the desktop, most of which are idle and finished
    playing or paused anyway?

    3) Useful management of / bookmarking of media and playlist / URL / MRL / whatever handling; most of the stuff I see is unusable.

    4) Session preservation... if I am in the middle of browsing / playing
    things, and I shutdown the PC or application with a "save session"
    preference then I want to be able to get back to EVERY window, instance,
    URL, MRL, FILE, STREAM, et. al. EXACTLY as it was before I shut down.
    The better browsers KINDA do this. Most other things don't at all. Come on!
    Furthermodre, even if I have 10 instances of an app open, and they're all
    "static" (not playing / loading) then I don't expect to have 10*N-Megabytes
    allocated "forever" in that desktop session just to keep the apps "alive"
    because at some point later in the week I *MIGHT* want to hit "PLAY" / "REWIND"
    again. Give the user a way to "GARBAGE COLLECT" the resources, recover use
    of the Audio / Vide

  136. Re:Codecs GPL'd? - Real Responds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was selling his wares with bullshit.

  137. Re: mplayer by Knuckles · · Score: 1

    Totem

    --
    "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns