Slashdot Mirror
The NYT's OS-Restrictive Video Policies
ro1 writes to mention a story on Linux.com about the NYT's confusing video policies. Essentially, if you're running Linux you can only see videos running on the front page of the site; videos elsewhere on the site require Windows or OSX. Roblimo has a video tour of the NYT site to explain the issue in detail. (Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.)
*snort* Production? Using vnc2swf does not make you a producer
Seriously tho' - roblimo's correct. It's an utterly absurd situation. A linux user should not have to change their UA string (illegal in some jurisdictions) just to watch videos. Why the hell isn't the NYT checking flash versions rather than OS anyway?
Nicely done anyway - and using flash a little flash presentation is a good way to get your point across to the non-techies around (I imagine even a senior editor at the NYT could understand the problem after watching that video).
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Well considering slashdot's attitude towards NYT concerning their registration policy.* Why should we concern ourselves with their video policies?
*BugMeNot for example.
For everyone using firefox, here's a nice little extension to get past this stuff. You can also set it as a googlebot and get all their articles for free.
How does any client side bug set their policy. Their policy clearly leaves out Linux users, and I am refering to their system requirements page. Also, how would they go about detecting a bug with the clients Linux/Flash player in the first place. This seems like an if-else where Linux falls into the else.
The only real question is if this was purposely done or not. I myself have seen my fair share of website that simply do not combinations of Linux and non-IE browsers for no obvious technical reason.
In the NY Times defense however, it's their site, they can do what they want, provided they give their Linux using subscribers a refund on their subscription fee.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
That's how things used to be, with webmasters making use of the NOEMBED tag. I personally do not understand the benifit of this screening process.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
...contains scripts that take advantage of unpatched exploits in Windows and Mac OS X that would send to NYT copies of all the gossips you send thru the internet. So far, there is little progress on the native Linux version. If you're an avid programmer of FOSS and would like to know what gossips you're girlfrie... errr I mean your CEO are spreading about you contact as at careers@nyt.com
I'm 'Needless Paranioa' and I aprove of this message.
I'm sorry, but what? All I can see is that their current online video authoring package isn't very good, and they don't want to have people who's OS doesn't support it thinking that there's a bug with their site.
Ok, it's not a good plan to not have it working in linux, but lets be honest, how many of the people working at nyt have anything but windows at their desk? I'm guessing none, with possibly a few macs about the place.
For that matter, how many users will be on linux? Not many I'll wager. Sad, but almost certainly true. Therefore this problem will effect only a very small minority of their readers.
The chances are that most people here use linux (me included). However, we are still in the minority, and we don't have persuasive reps loaded with free pens going round selling authoring packages and other web software to newspapers.
While that's the case, linux will get the short straw.
The NYT is not alone. I was signing up for a UFB Direct online bank account and the application froze. I called the 800 number and they immediately said, "you used Firefox, didn't you?". Yes I did and they only support IE. For goodness sake they are a ONLINE BANK and they don't support a browser with 10%+ market share? Can you imagine if they had someone at a brick and mortar store and they threw out every 10th person who walked through?
I call shenanigans!
Apparently this is NYT's way of saying that if you're smart enough to be using Linux, and diligent enough to go beyond the front page, then New York Times isn't meant for you! It could be their strategy to cater to only the dumber sections of the poulace, perhaps?
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
As a web developer I'd like to say that it would take more effort to restrict browsers/operating systems than to accomodate for them.
Seems as though they have their priorities a little backwards.
Stupid f**king people these days.
Apparently changing the UA string doesn't make a difference.. surely this would suggest to you a bug with the implementation of videos/flash etc under Linux
The point is that videos from the front page do work fine under Linux. So there is no reason to prevent other videos from working.
No, changing the useragent string DOES work! This is plain and simple discrimination against anyone using software that isn't from Microsoft/Apple.
I recommend letting the NYTimes know you're not happy about them not supporting Linux (and preferably Ogg Vorbis/Theora) in a language that everyone can understand...
president@nytimes.com; publisher@nytimes.com; public@nytimes.com; feedback@nytimes.com; clarosa@nytimes.com; schools@nytimes.com; wedinfo@nytimes.com; society@nytimes.com; nytnews@nytimes.com; executive-editor@nytimes.com; managing-editor@nytimes.com; news-tips@nytimes.com; the-arts@nytimes.com; bizday@nytimes.com; foreign@nytimes.com; metro@nytimes.com; national@nytimes.com; sports@nytimes.com; washington@nytimes.com; editorial@nytimes.com; oped@nytimes.com; circulation@nytimes.com
I just set my User Agent in Firefox 1.5.0.5/Ubuntu Linux 6.06 to Opera 8.0/Win 2000, after whitelisting the site with flashblock, the video played perfectly in the Videos section, and I wasn't shooed away by any browser detection.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Those statistics are for the bbc homepage only, for one week in september 2005. He even states that he expects an above average number of people visiting the front page are newer-to-the-internet users (because they haven't bookmarked the inside section they want yet), and those on corporate systems as the bbc is deemed 'safe' to visit from work. This is based on their user profiling in the past.
Both of those would depress the number of alternative OS and browser users. You also have to factor in the number of linux users that have already altered their Useragent string to windows+IE in order to bypass moronic page restrictions like the NYT. Windows+IE native users of course, have very little need to alter theirs.
Finally, that was a year ago. Vista still isn't out, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if both the numbers for OSX and linux were up, and of course firefox adoption - especially given an increasing number of corporates are adopting it for security. Certainly, the broad sweep of those figures is reasonable (I wouldn't expect linux use to be above 2% in those circumstances) but I wouldn't count on them as completely gospel of the current OS and browser useage for general users.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
I called the 800 number and they immediately said, "you used Firefox, didn't you?". Yes I did and they only support IE.
What does it tell you when your bank only supports the least secure browser and won't do business with people who prefer more security?
)9TSS
Situation if they didn't block linux: only people with bad or esoteric configurations whine.
Please advice how the first option is better? Remember that NYT is not obligated to "support" anyone any more than they do now (do you think they don't get calls from windows users with fucked computers all the time?)
So obviously it is such a common problem that it is one of the first things they say. Hopefully this message will filter through to the higher-ups there and they are (considering?) working on a solution.
Warhammer forums
It's THEIR product/service, THEY can do as they please with it. ...
IT'S THAT SIMPLE!
Uhh... yeah, thanks, but it's not really THAT simple.
Are you religious? Yes, no? How would you feel if you got barred from a restaurant based on whether or not you're religious?
What sort of car do you drive? How would you feel if you paid for a carpark but then got turned away because they don't accept your type of car, despite the fact that you could easily have fit into one of the parking spaces?
I thought this http://www.w3.org/Consortium/ was the standard.
Why should everyone just meekly accept everything that is thrust upon them?
It's called full disclosure, and it's pretty standard when dealing with a "reputable" journalism source.
It is very aggravating to try to watch some flash video and only see parts of it because whomever created it did so using Flash player 8 or 9. Flash player 8 has been out for at least a year now, and Flash 9 has subsequently been released for windows and osx. Why no new Linux Flash player?
Now, after visiting this site with and without the "Switch User Agent" and being blocked when it was set to Firefox and allowed when set to IE6, I too can see that there seems to be no technical reason for blocking Linux users. For those who say that some users odd configuration may cause them not to be able to view some of the videos, I don't understand why that would be the case as Flash should stand on its own for its content. There may be some lag involved in the worst cases, but I have never come across a Flash 7 video that hasn't worked very well (except the occasional lag in large flash files). I have also viewed Flash videos on several different Linux boxes, including an older P3, all with no troubles.
On a semi-related note (being about Linux compatability for pay services)- I subscribe to Comcast Cable and Internet, we don't have a choice in the location I'm in for cable tv, and recently needed to set up my internet connection. They give you the choice of having their guy do it for $99 or do it yourself for $9. Now, of course, I chose the diy option not only becuase I didn't want to pay the money, but also because I don't want sombody that I don't know getting on my computer. However, Comcast does not support Linux (I run Suse 10). I had to call them up and spend an hour on the phone with them so that they would add the MAC address of my cable modem into their system. Why not just make a browser-based setup that everybody can access, instead of this silly proprietary thing?
Anyways, my point is that it is absolutly rediculous that these situations occur (situations in which there it would take little to no effort to support Linux and that is not done). I mean last I knew, Linux and OSX had a similarly sized market share, so why support one and not the other. I am not willing to give up 15GB+ to install windows, even in a VM (which doesn't help hardware issues), I would rather be using my disk space for something else. Also, I just wanted to mention to those who will surely post that I should be making sure that I check to see if it's Linux compatable before I buy, and I do. The problem is that in certain situations, there is not that luxury of taking your buisiness elsewhere for a comparable product (ie. my cable).
IMHO, if a company is going to be the only choice for some product or service, they really need to support everybody. The argument that "we don't have a linux/unix guy shouldn't fly. They are a service in which the consumer cannot chose an alternative, which means that they are rakin' in the cash, they should be able to scrounge up $50K/yr to get a linux guy if they don't already have one. I'm sick of being in a situation where I am told 'you have to use this service if you want internet,' then the service provider says, 'you have to use this proprietary system if you don't want to us pay $100 to set it up.'
So then just put "I'm a catholic" (or whatever your religion is...) into your user-agent, and when NYT's videobot refuses you, sue away!
I had a similar experience with a bank some years ago. When I came in to explain to my personal banking unit that my browser kept crashing when I tried to access their online offerings, she immediately said, "You're using an Apple PC, right?"
"Yes," I admit quietly, just in case some hicks are listening and might want to drag me behind their pick-up truck or otherwise hassle me for my alternative lifestyle choice.
"The thing is," the personal banking unit explained, "the Apple computers have such a small share of the market that it costs too much for us to develop a secure website in parallel."
"That's too bad," I sigh.
"Yeah," she agrees, "it seems like every third person who wants to do online banking has an Apple."
I pause and scratch my head. "I thought you said there weren't enough of us to make it worth your while."
"Well yeah," she nods, "but I think it must be easier to get on the Internet with Apple or something, because it seems like almost everybody who's comfortable doing online banking wants to use an Apple for it."
"So doesn't that mean there's a demand for a Mac-compatible service?"
"Well no," she shakes her head, "you see Apple has less than a billionth of percent of marketshare. So...you know -- that's that. Sorry!"
So, to make a long story short, that's when I entered a special Scientology-run programme designed to cure me using non-psychiatric means of my penchant for using the wrong computer. And I feel much better now.
These stories are free but worth money.
The answer is: They are assholes, idiots, lazy, in bed with Microsoft, or some combination thereof.
Personally I get left out of video sites all the time because I choose to use an older version of Windows (because I can). These sites will kindly tell me that they only "support" running on a PC with Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Yet sites like Google Video work perfectly for me.
What really blows my mind are old sites that check your UA to make sure you are running "Netscape", although spoofing the UA in Firefox usually lets it work fine.
I follow the Firefox bad site reporter data at http://reporter.mozilla.org/app/ and it boggles my mind how many sites are like this.
The Boy Scouts are not a commercial entity. That's why they can "get away" with it.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Seems to be standard here, too.
It is probably the same mentality at the NYT that many streamers have. The NYT has its free stuff and it has it subscription stuff. I suspect they think they are being shrewd by only allowing open media on the "free" front page.
But is it shrewd? A radio station wouldn't make it _hard_ to tune in their broadcast because that would be counterproductive to the value of their station for ad revenue, right?
Yet internet streamers often act like every copyrighted word from their announcers is archive gold to be sold and resold for decades and they would be insane to allow access to a program like mplayer where the savvy user knows how to save their invaluable content. Well, I've got a shock for them. What they often stream is no more valuable than what is being broadcast on the radio or TV and people are no more likely to save every byte than people are to tape radio or TV all day. And, sadly, it may be that if ad revenue can't pay for stream, perhaps stream isn't a useful medium?
Now that I've got my MythTV setup running and MythStream compiled in, I can see that proprietary embedded streaming isn't going to cut it for me. EVEN IF they accommodate something like linux RealPlayer, in the living room I'm going to be listening to stations where I can add a static URL to my MythStream page and click on it with a remote.
State farm used to have a completely borked payment website that blew up on Firefox. I simply tried it, failed and sent the webmaster a complaint every month. thne paid by check with a note that said "I would pay via the website but it is broken for firefox users" it took only 3 months for them to fix it... It also helped that I turned my local agent on to firefox and then demonstrated how their website was incompatable and he immediately got on the phone to complain.
Most service websites that are not firefox compatable are only because of the WEB/IT departments fault as they push it out as fast as possible. The upper managers do not make the decision to ignore a customer base and complaining to a sales upper manager will force IT/WEB to fix it. Get more than 3 people to complain regularly and even make calls and it certianly will get fixed as they assume it's many more people that are having the problem.
I even fixed my bank's website that way. They "upgraded" and lost a couple of features so I complained to upper managers in the bank and within 60 days the features were back.
call, email and write your complaints!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The point of TFA is that their site works fine on Linux. They don't have to include Linux in their list of supported systems (requirements) if they don't want to "support" it. "If you are having trouble, please be sure to use a supported browser & media player..."
But what NYT has done here is to make sure that you are having trouble if you use Linux.
It's hard to come up with an analogy here, but what the hell I'll try: A movie theater exhibits 3-D films, and there's a station outside to buy the "approved" 3-D glasses. Now a penguin walks up with some DIY glasses he's been experimenting with. He buys a ticket and goes through the line to the theater door.
And they won't let him in
"Sorry, sir, we don't support those glasses."
"I don't want you to support my glasses; just let me in."
"Sorry, you'll have to go buy glasses from the station outside"
Would you get a little suspicious? Would you wonder how the guy running that station got such a gig?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love