Slashdot Mirror
Council of the EU Says "We Cannot Support Linux"
An anonymous reader writes "The Council of the EU has a streaming service so that we can watch its meetings — but the service can only be accessed by Mac or MS Windows users. This is because they employ WMV format for the videos. In the FAQ they express a really strange opinion about this: 'The live streaming media service of the Council of the European Union can be viewed on Microsoft Windows and Macintosh platforms. We cannot support Linux in a legal way. So the answer is: No support for Linux.' An online petition has been set up to create pressure to convince the EU council to change its service to one that is platform independent."
Ogg Theora?
And even if you think it is illegal to watch MPEG on Linux in the EU, the crime would be committed by the veiwer, not the broadcaster.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
First off, they didn't hire an interpreter (come on, you going to tell me there isn't a properly-qualified English-language interpreter to fix that garbage? Second, whichever Microsoft zealot wrote that page really needs to expatiate on his reasoning. From where I sit, it looks like a blatant lie to cover up for laziness.
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
"We cannot support Linux in a legal way."
What's so illegal about a Flash-based streaming player?
I would guess they can't support GNU/Linux in a legal way because they can't offer the codecs. Only parties that have an agreement of sorts or have paid M$ royalties can use it. GNU/Linux doesn't, though distributions like that one that used to be known as Lindows (can't remember the name) comes with closed-source ones.
The petition to urge them to use a platform-independent format is a good answer.
WMV3 has been opened. MPlayer / FFMPEG support it natively now. Google Summer of Code had a project to make an optimized player for it.
Yes I think it still has patent issues or something but in Europe I don't think that matters.
Or should I say Eutube!
*ducks*
That should be "We're too ignorant to support Linux in a legal way."
thegodmovie.com - watch it
yes yes, i know. Put the burning torches down :) - Still if the BBC can offer their video services in both WMV and Realmedia formats, why cant the EU?
Its certainly supported on linux after all
The "legal way" thing probably refers to the inability to provide a legal WMV player for Linux, not that it isn't legal for the EU to stream in another format. I don't think anyone there is trying to say that it's illegal to stream in a different format. Rather, they are saying that since WMV is what they use (for whatever reason - political, economic, or simply fiat), Linux users can't be supported.
What about Realplayer exactly is illegal? I know it won't solve *BSDs and other *Nix users' problems, but Linux has a realplayer version.
So why again is it illegal to run something that is not MS specific?
Hello, welcome to the new year, we're in the 21st century, not in the early 90s, there's something called "interoperability" that has been growing in the tech world... Time for reality to harvest!
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
We don't support the EU either.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
There's always been a lot of FUD regarding Linux and legality, but this is absurd. Since when does producing media that can be viewed on a Linux machine violate the law? By this argument, that FAQ is illegal since a Linux user is able to read it. Unless they mean that in order to verify that the Linux service works, they would need to install Linux on one of their own systems, which they view as being illegal. But of course anyone knows all you have to do to be legal under Linux is: -buy a license from SCO -only use Novell's Suse Linux -buy a couple copies of Windows just in case Right? Right!?
"The live streaming media service of the Council of the European Union supports Internet Explorer 5 and higher, Netscape Navigator 6 and higher. If you encounter problems with a lower version of your browser, the browser should be updated to facilitate the live streaming media service. Firefox and Opera will be supported with a minimal of functionalities."
This is the market share for browsers as of Nov 2006:
Microsoft Internet Explorer, 80.56%
Firefox, 13.50%
Safari, 4.03%
Netscape, 0.83%
Opera, 0.67%
This is the market share for Operating Systems as of Nov 2006:
Windows XP, 84.95%
Windows 2000, 5.46%
Mac OS, 4.10%
Windows 98, 1.90%
MacIntel, 1.29%
Windows ME, 0.91%
Windows NT, 0.76%
Linux, 0.37%
You could argue for better firefox support, but as much as we love linux, I suppose they have no obligation to make it work for something that is that small minority among desktop users.
Slashdot is powered by your submission.
From where I sit, it looks like a blatant lie to cover up for laziness.
<complete_nonsense>
You don't know the EU very well do you? You see this has nothing to do with laziness. If the EU replaces it's WMV streaming systems with a competing product it will result in 68 shirt and tie wearing MCSEs with nice conservative Bill Gates haircuts being replaced by a couple of hairy bucktoothed nerds with a nasty armpit malodor problem and the fashions sense of a Portuguese donkey wrangler. So this whole mess is really all about French objections because of the effect such a change would have on the already low fashion standards of EU employees and all the other EU member countries fears that it might make the unemployment situation in the European MCSE community any worse since the job security of the European MCSE community is already badly threatened by the way Linux looks set to exterminate Windows from the EU's desktop computer market.
</complete_nonsense>
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Obvoiusly soneone has wanted to point this out, if it's explicitly written on the EU site. At the risk of sounding trollish:
We will not have our legislation locked down in ways that force EU citicens to buy software from one specific vendor. FUCK YOU.
We like to think we're better than the US. Apperarently our legislators are also bought off. If you as an elected politician get your salary from Microsoft Corporation or Apple Computer inc, please report directly to me for your ticket to Baghdad and the Saddam Hussein rope massage. Thank you for your incompetent attempt at running a democracy, please don't come again.
When people recommend half-assed or not ready OSS solutions, it hurts the OSS cause. Theora isn't ready to go, it's not even remotely ready. There's a reason why it's still an alpha whereas Vorbis is a full release. It is in no way shape or form a ready competitor to WMV at this time.
It's much better to admit there's nothing that works out there that's OSS than to recommend a poor OSS solution. The reason is that the number one justification against OSS is shoddy quality. You talk to J. Random PHB and the reason they don't want to use OSS is because it's poor quality/not supported. Well, advocating things that are, in fact, poor quality just provides them with ammo for their argument.
Also it can hurt a format to get lots of exposure before it's ready. If everyone's first exposure to Theora is when it's buggy, that idea will form in their minds and later when it's stable, they will still associate Theora = buggy and thus give it a pass.
At this point, we just need to wait on Theora. Vorbis is great, I've no doubt in time Theroa will be its match, however it's not the kind of thing that will happen in a day.
The really funny part of this story is you also can't watch those videos if you've got the version of Windows Vista with media player ripped out due to the EU's antitrust rulings (unless you download media player or some other WMV-capable player, of course). Hah hah.
First they (the EU) force MS to marked a version of Windows without media-player... and then they release content that needs that very media player...
Going straight Theora+Vorbis wouldn't work that well, since the user would have the install the codecs first and Vorbis/Theora support is severely lacking on OS X.
Quoting the site:
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
Not so fast dude! The last time I checked, no body has ever chosen to be born caucasian, black, oriental or otherwise...on the other hand, there is likely a huge probability that all these folks that do not belong to the "chosen" platform to support actually chose to use the platform. And now, they are clamoring for support! Jeez!
Sorry in advance in case you made an application to whoever created you, to create you the way you are.
From the linked site. It has been relatively easy to get .wmv, .mov, etc. working in Linux for quite some time now. Check out the MPlayer plugin for Firefox. For K/X/Ubuntu or other Debian-based distro users, "apt-get install mozilla-mplayer".
I do agree, however, that all government websites should make their content available platform-independent. But then, that would require common-sense, now wouldn't it?
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
"Why don't we just create a world wide class action law suit against companies or organizations that do not support independent OS architecture?"
The community is not even really asking for *support*; merely to not be explicitly suppressed.
I have a banking site that I must use, which uses the user agent to decide who may and who may not use the web site to pay their bills.
I do not want "support" for my browser, I just want them to stop purposely trying to prevent me from using it. They do *more* work to try to suppress users than they would do to "support" them.
And any banking institution that has IT staff who consider it appropriate to use the User Agent string as part of security, should be approached with great suspicion anyway. This is not some small independent savings and loan -- it is Wells Fargo. The thing is, Wells Fargo's online banking system is pretty good. But their "Financial Services" division is nowhere near at the same level of competence.
Because *I* owe *them* money in this case, it's not exactly like I can choose to walk away. So I sort of have to take it. I'm just waiting for them to accuse me of fraud because instead of using my normal browser user agent string ("Bond/007; UK; Licensed to Kill"), I change it to something close enough to Internet Explorer 6 to get me in. (Great security *there*, Wells Fargo.)
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I guess we're supposed to ignore all the people who have been using Ogg Vorbis+Theora feeds for years (many listed on the Ogg Theora website and instead give in to an argument based on a version name and vague goals of "readiness", or for another overmoderated post in this thread, market presence built on violating the law. We're not supposed to advocate for people using unencumbered FLOSS software to do this job across platforms in a non-discriminatory way. Even according to the open source argument which dismisses social solidarity out of hand (something governments ought not do), discouraging use seems particularly unwise.
Digital Citizen
Same arguement applies here as it does with any other form of computerized documentation. All forms of government computerized documention should be done to open standards so it won't become unreadable when the license is no longer supported by the compan/y/ies that owns the patents. Really now, does anyone in the world want their governments computerized/digitized documentation controlled by some company that controls the patents for the method of storage? Does anyone want their governments documentation in a format that is digitalized by an executable with unknown code written in a country other then your own? Does anyone really want to trust their government or the maker of the file creating software not to include something akin to the SONY rootkit?
Citizens of the world should unite in the cause of demanding that all closed software be removed from all government computers and all government files. Citizens of the EU and other places often throw it up that the US is not as free as its forefathers planned and attempted to maintain with its Constitution and unfortunately too often they are right. Here is a chance for the EU to help lead the way, some of its countries already moving to keep closed formats out of government documents, time to increase that though. In the EU one should not need the permission of a US company to view EU government at work.
Many people are throwing around OS usage statistics, like from www.w3schools.com. These statistics are worldwide, and do not reflect the [potential] visitors to this geographically-specific site.
Nevertheless, the number of people using Linux--and probably MacOS as well--pales in comparison to those who do not have a computer at all. (or hispeed internet, or a fast enough machine, etc.)
Assuming the CotEU is required to provide streaing video for those without Windows or MacOS, then who's to say they shouldn't have to make it available to those without a computer at all?
In my city (Ottawa, Canada), City Council meetings are open to the public. Anyone can go. Can't participate, but you can watch. You can also watch Council meetings on the local Cable channel (which means you have to purchase cable from Rogers--and this has been the case for decades without public outcry) You can also watch online. I think they use a RealMedia format.
If you don't have a computer (or cable TV) at home, there are computer terminals at all the public library branches and at many community centres. Assuming the City has a right to make these meetings available for live viewing to all citizens (which, really, is covered by letting any citizen attend meetings in person) then they have done so by making these computer terminals available at local libraries. Not incidentally, this would also cover off the Linux-using population in the case of the CotEU.
If your computer cannot access the stream (because it can't run on Linux, or is too old, or your internet connection isn't fast enough), then you can go to one of these places to view it. Or, if you want equality, the Council can stop streaming online, and everyone will be unable to watch it.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
But whenever we see some site choose to make new content available in those very same Windows formats, many of the same people who were telling potential new users that all these things were easy on Linux suddenly switch and say that Linux users are locked out.
If we want to get people to use Linux, we have to get our story straight as to what Linux can do!
This sounds like a typical middle-class IT fuckup - the task of creating a video streaming solution was assigned to the boss' cousin, who doesn't know there are operating systems besides Windows and always watches his porn as WMV streams, so the solution was clear for him. I'm far from being a mindless EU basher, but the quality controll still leaves a lot to be desired.
There are so many other options: from .mov to video containing mp3 files. Why .wmv?
... basically people have been successfully using it for a while. Technically QuickTime is older but prior to iTunes QuickTime was a bit flaky on the PC side and Windows Media filled the void. It is harder to displace a "defacto standard" than fill a void.
Inertia, it works,
You forget that the geeks have nothing to say about this. This is a result of a patent and IP war. Video encoding is one of the most locked down areas of IT. So, no "gathering" of geeks will change anything.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
That's an unbelievably bizarre metaphor - equating operating system support as anything like racial discrimination.
I can't understand why anyone would confuse freedom and civil liberties, can you? Is it worse to screw everyone for the benefit of a few, than it is to screw other races? Violating others is wrong, regardless of numbers.
A government that forces non free software for popular participation is not interested in popular participation or does not mind having a third party as a mediator of that participation. It is perverse and wrong for governments to force people to chose between software freedom and participation in their culture. They would have more control if they were to broadcast on TV only. They will have more particpation if they chose a free format and force the third parties to make due. Microsoft is never going to behave and the problems will never end unless people quit using their shit.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The council of the European Union also doesn't support Firefox or Opera to there full extend. They say that them self right here, http://ceuweb.belbone.be/faq.php?lang=EN
And I quote.
"In what browsers can I view the live streaming media service of the Council of the European Union?
The live streaming media service of the Council of the European Union supports Internet Explorer 5 and higher, Netscape Navigator 6 and higher. If you encounter problems with a lower version of your browser, the browser should be updated to facilitate the live streaming media service. Firefox and Opera will be supported with a minimal of functionalities: No possibilities to use the Table Of contents for positioning the streaming. All the buttons for the player will disappear and the standard buttons of the player must be used to control the stream."
There stream is nothing more then mms that works with mplayer of properly configured at the servers end. This is a typical fuckup of a admin who doesn't actually know anything about computers and how to stream a video.
Or, rather, they can decide that they aren't going to support any and every strange thing citizens want.
There's a real difference between accommodating a minority who's that way because of a physical problem they can't overcome (such as loss of limb use, blindness, etc) and a minority who's that way because they choose to be so.
For example suppose you tried to mandate that the government had to provide parking at their official buildings for any kind of vehicle someone might want. Now suppose that a trucker decides that they want to use their rig, complete with trailer, as the means of transportation. Now you have to have to go to a large amount of trouble because someone is choosing to try and make things difficult.
Of course in that case the government doesn't need to accommodate them. That person is perfectly capable of using another car or taking the bus or riding a bike or whatever.
Well the same goes for computers. The government can say they are only supporting the major OSes. You can't say "but they have to support all OSes!" because they don't and that's clearly impossible. What about the guy using a Commodore 128 to get on the net (it happens, encountered a guy who used one to play MUDs back in my MUD days)?
I recently had to organise a live webcast for a large (thousands) audience. What I found was that just about every company I approached pushed me into using WMV due to the following reasons,
/could/ but no one was offering any format it supports.
1) Also encoding for Real Player means extra encoding fees,
2) Although Flash claims to support live streaming, the license fees for it's servers to make a viable live streaming infrastructure are completely ridiculous so it is only good for progressive download.
3) No one offered any other format,
4) One of the largest networks in the world, Akamai, only has a small number of Real Server licenses left and they are dwindling due to lack of demand,
5) Live streaming from a whole network is a different ballgame to streaming from one server. Only Real and WMS can handle it properly. I know Icecast probably
From my own experience in smaller scale streaming I have not had much success using a Theroa/Icecast solution because there is no basic application just to grab V4L and convert it to a stream (I even tried coding one myself before running out of time and getting stumped since I lack the skills), though you can use ffmpeg2theroa to grab from a DV CAM. I tried Flumotion but it only seems to work with the latest and greatest version of Fedora at any given time. It's also way to complicated. Exactly what is all this "planet", "atmosphere", "streams" stuff about? I got nowhere fast trying to install it on CentOS4 which is what the enocding box runs (and I am not in a position to suddenly change OS since it does lots of other functions).
First they hammer microsoft for almost a billions of dollars in fines.
Then they say it is is required to play the video.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
To whom it may concern:
& mode=thread&commentsort=0&op=Change&sid=214392
I am interested in politics - especially on the European level, because political decisions heavily influence the way we, citizens of the EU states, live. As have learnt through Slashdot, a news website [1], the Council of the EU has decided to offer a streaming media service.
In my opinion, this is a very interesting service with great potential to provide citizens with more information to actual issues.
Unfortunately, the stream is only avaiable in a proprietary format named Windows Media Video (WMV). In your frequently asked questions [2] you state that "[the] live streaming media service [...] supports [only] Internet Explorer 5 and higher, Netscape Navigator 6 and higher.", that "[the stream] can be viewed [only] on Microsoft Windows and Macintosh platforms." and "[you] cannot support Linux in a legal way.".
As a user of free and open source software, this cought my attention. As a politically interested citizen, I would like to know why a proprietary (secret, probably patent-encumbered) format was chosen over an open video standard like Ogg Theora or XviD.
Proprietary formats, like WMV, are vendor-specific: They prevent or make it difficult for others to implement the specification. In this specific case, one has to download Windows Media Player, which is not avaiable for GNU/Linux, the operating system I am using. In constrast, open standards enable everyone to implement them: They are a vendor-agnostic, royalty-free and allow for a wide range of implementations. This can be compared to the analogue radio program, which can be heard with any radio, not just radios from microsoft.
As you can see, the use of a proprietary format is unfair, discriminatory behaviour against those who can not or do not want to use Microsoft Windows Media Player. The fact that this is done by a government entity makes it worse. In my opinion, gouvernment should not discriminate people - not even based on their choice of software. This is somehow a policital issue, but I doubt any reasonable citizen would oppose my position.
Most likely it is technically possible to offer the streaming media service in an open format to enable everyone with a capable computer and a good internet connection to watch it. You could do this, for example, with the free and open source software VLC Media Player [3], which is avaiable for a wide range of operating systems free of charge. Another way to provide wide access to your media stream could be the use of a java applet like Cortado (also free and open source software) which eliminates the need for a media player.
XXXX XXXX, a concerned citizen of the European Union
[1] http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=0
[2] http://ceuweb.belbone.be/faq.php?lang=EN
[3] http://videolan.org/
[4] http://www.flumotion.net/cortado/
While I agree with your comments re: the suckiness of English (I speak five modern languages, including a couple of the "hard" ones), my comment in this regard wasn't that English should be forced upon anyone - if that page were in Dutch, French, or German, I'd shrug and figure that's where the website is, so the choice of language makes sense. But the fact that these conferences are streamed in wmv-only format and then the entire website is in broken English - that just looks bad. Really, unprofessionally, and given the number of interpreters/translators available to the EU, inexcusably bad. Moral of the story is: if you can't find a good translator for your webpage, write it in your native tongue.
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
Send a protest by email, or better yet, written letter to them: streaming.helpline@consilium.europa.eu (technical) or Public.info@consilium.europa.eu (organizational),
Council of the European Union
Rue de la Loi, 175 B-1048 Bruxelles
Telephone (32-2) 281 61 11
Fax (32-2) 281 69 99
Contact your local/national members of the european parliament or even better, members of the council directly.
Microsoft and related industries has a lot of well paid lobbyists at the EU, open source advocates and private people who just want to use Linux as an alternative have nothing.
Make some pressure.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Because Quicktime is despised just slightly less than Ogg.
Off the top of my head:
Significant overhead.
Metadata at the end of files (like AVI).
This precluding good playback of partial files, and causes really terrible problems with partially damaged MOV files.
Unbelivably large number of different ways to do anything.
An unbelivably huge and complex standard that probably nobody on earth understands entirely.
14 different versions of the standard, and a field in the MOV header to dictate which version of the standard the player should use to read the file.
And finally: patents
If quicktime wasn't so horrible, you certainly wouldn't have ever seen formats like Ogg or MKV.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
The only thing stopping them from 'legally' supporting Linux is the existence of software patents, which are not valid in the EU. Remind them of this.
Finally, remind them that this is not about Linux users. No one cares about Linux users. This is about users of anything other than Windows, including mobile phones. My mobile can play H.263, MPEG-4, and RealVideo 7,8 formats. If they pick WMV, this means the only people who can watch the video on their mobile phones are Windows Mobile users; they are helping Microsoft leverage a monopoly on the desktop to gain on in the mobile space. If they pick H.263 or MPEG-4, then anyone can watch them, whether they have Windows, Mac, or *NIX on their desktop, or Windows, Symbian or Linux on their mobile.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
ador wrote:
>One serious problem is that there are no working Theora VFW plugins (some exist, but they are unusable). You *have* to install VLC or mplayer.
I am an mplayer man, but Realplayer supports ogg, what is wrong with that? In the UK at least most people will have it as it is required for BBC and so on.
My little Linux and tech blog