Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Touts Open Source, Ignores Linux
Julie188 writes "If Netflix loves open source, where's the Linux client? Last week's post from Netflix on its use of open source has gotten a lot of coverage from the tech press. Too bad nobody's called the video giant out on its hypocrisy: They benefit greatly from open source, but really don't care to let their customers do the same."
Uh, go get the open source and build it yourself. Why should Netflix be obliged to implement a Linux port? Not doing something is not the same as preventing it from happening.
For example, where is my Linux version of SketchUp?
My blog
My little Roku box that sits next to my TV and plays Netflix is built on Linux apparently. In a developer discussion about why there was no Linux desktop player I got the impression that the sticking point was the ease of siphoning off the video stream in a system where you can compile your own kernel was the real problem.
Sounds like they're letting their customers benefit from Open Source just fine:
> Here is an incomplete sampling of the projects we utilize, we have contributed back to most of them: Hudson, Hadoop, Hive, Honu, Apache, Tomcat, Ant, Ivy, Cassandra, HBase, etc, etc.
That's a lot more than many companies that use Open Source (and have Linux clients or applications) do. Contributing back to the projects benefits everyone - not just users of FOSS desktop systems, but everyone that interacts with a system built on those projects.
Netflix make use of open source on the server-side. What on Earth does this have to do with supporting an open source client? They contribute back to the projects they use, which is all anyone can ask for.
It's like saying because you use Linux on your desktop, then you're a bad person for not contributing to Hadoop. Huh?
where's the Linux client?
Julie188 hasent started it yet.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
This article is everything that is wrong with the linux community. They are very vocal about touting the benefits of open source and linux, but when a company echoes those sentiments they lash out with demands and accusations of "doing it wrong"
I don't see any hypocrisy in netflix claiming it likes ant, tomcat, etc but not announcing a linux client. As far as i know they haven't said, "under no circumstances will we ever release a general Linux client."
I could be wrong. I maybe missed part of the dialog, but it seems like a saner response to the netflix post would be something more like, "Hey, you guys sound pretty progressive with this whole open source thing. There's millions of us linux users out here who would really love a linux client."
From the Netflix website:
"The great thing about a good open source project that solves a shared challenge is that it develops it's own momentum and it is sustained for a long time by a virtuous cycle of continuous improvement. At Netflix we jumped on for the ride a long time ago and we have benefited enormously from the virtuous cycles of actively evolving open source projects. We benefit from the continuous improvements provided by the community of contributors outside of Netflix. We also benefit by contributing back the changes we make to the projects. By sharing our bug fixes and new features back out into the community, the community then in turn continues to improve upon bug fixes and new features that originated at Netflix and then we complete the cycle by bring those improvements back into Netflix."
"Here is an incomplete sampling of the projects we utilize, we have contributed back to most of them: Hudson, Hadoop, Hive, Honu, Apache, Tomcat, Ant, Ivy, Cassandra, HBase, etc, etc."
http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/why-we-use-and-contribute-to-open.html
They are mooching.
They have taken from the commons and aren't giving back.
Wrong. They contribute to the projects they use.
"Here is an incomplete sampling of the projects we utilize, we have contributed back to most of them: Hudson, Hadoop, Hive, Honu, Apache, Tomcat, Ant, Ivy, Cassandra, HBase, etc, etc."
http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/why-we-use-and-contribute-to-open.html
The Netflix streams are all have proprietary DRM protection. To write our own client we would have to reverse engineer this proprietary protocol (which is legal, but can be difficult), and then worse, we would have hack the authorized players, and to get the DRM keys out of them. This implementation would constitute a circumvention device, and using or distributing it would be illegal under the DMCA.
Asking open source customers to break the law to use your service isn't exactly friendly to open source.
Netflix doesn't open source its client. This is not something that they control. They have various deals with various content providers that stipulate that they use DRM in their streaming solution. If they made an open-source client, it would defeat the purpose of the DRM. (Yes, DRM doesn't work and blah blah blah, but this is a business requirement, not a technical requirement. If you want to get mad at them about it, get mad at Hollywood instead.)
AFAIK, Netflix generally doesn't implement its own DRM, but instead uses the DRM from whatever platform they distribute on. The do have a "Linux" version if you count Android, but the company has claimed that they've had difficulty using it due to platform fragmentation and because it doesn't implement all of the features they need to satisfy their studio agreements. They've said they have to develop for one device at a time.
And that's with Android's libraries. So when you're asking for a Linux client for Netflix, you're not just asking for a port of their Windows or Mac clients, you're asking them to spend a lot of extra dollars to develop a closed-source DRM solution for a small market that hates DRM (and closed-sourced, to a lesser extent). Where is the sense in that? If Netflix did make a Linux client, submitters would be crawling on top of each other screaming, "Netflix Trying to Destroy Linux With Evil Client From Hell."
On the other hand, it's nice that they contribute to other projects.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
Reed Hastings, co-founder and CEO of Netflix, sits on the board of directors of Microsoft.
Why do you think they went with Silverlight?
Why do you think the PS3 and Wii required discs to use Netflix for so long?
If it owns a piece of me you need to invest in a better fund.
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Remember when Loki was a poorly run company that ported old out of date games?
Well back to playing those linux Humble bundle games now.
Mod parent up. If it had not been for this Netflix would have done what hulu did and used flash like every other streaming site out there.
You're grossly exaggerating.
Don't forget that Netflix used to work in Linux, but then they switched to Silverlight and dumped Linux users...at the mailbox? They just drank the Microsoft juice (and since the co-founder is on Microsoft's board, no surprise there. Conflict-of-interest, anyone? I think that needs to be illegal).
Besides, the fact that it works on Roku proves that it is possible but they are choosing to not support Linux users.
The only plausible excuse would be that the content owners from which they license content wouldn't license their content to Netflix if Netflix had a desktop Linux player. But I think that's a flimsy excuse, perhaps completely invalid. Netflix chose to stop using Flash, and I doubt it had anything to do with that. After all, Hulu uses it, and Hulu's a joint effort from the studios.
They need not say "under no circumstances will we ever release a general Linux client." They've done worse than that: they used to support Linux, then they dropped it, leaving users with no alternative except dual-booting Windows, and now they have said that they have no plans to support Linux.
You know what it boils down to? Corporate greed. The drive for ever-increasing profits. The focus on ROI over all other considerations. Because if Netflix wanted to support desktop Linux, they could. They just choose not to.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Yes. And they have selected technologies that make their product compatible with what...perhaps 98% of consumer platforms?
Perhaps _you_ are the one who has selected incompatible technologies?
I wouldn't expect Netflix to do anything for 3% of potential user base.
Netflix has "over 16 million customers." 3% of that is 480,000 people. At $8/month that's $46 Million/Year. Is that not real money anymore?
The only plausible excuse would be that the content owners from which they license content wouldn't license their content to Netflix if Netflix had a desktop Linux player.
That's actually it. It isn't some conspiracy, or a secret. I'm a random Ubuntu user, and I looked into the whole netflix thing, and I consider one thread to be definitive [1].
I want to quote the netflix rep posting in the thread as saying that he uses Ubuntu and that netflix would love to have a linux client if they could get the rights to do one. But, cut and paste doesn't work for me on slashdot :(
Anyway, read it for yourself. It is pretty clear that Netflix is on our side.
[1] developer.netflix.com/forum/read/49086
The purpose of allowing them to use open source is that we want to give stuff away so other people can use it.
And we, too, can use that open source.
If the only way you'll give something away is if people agree that they are actually obligated to give something of equal value back, that's not actually giving something away at all. I don't release stuff as open source because I think it makes people owe me free stuff, I release stuff as open source because I believe it is the way in which I can maximize the value of my contributions.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Banks can do it. And they are not protecting rubbish movies, they protecting actual money.
Give a certificate to each user of Netflix, provide all the necessary APIs, any play operation needs to use the user certificates which would need to be authenticated against a Netflix mandated certificate authority.
The movies would be of course encrypted with the private key associated to the user, which remains under Netflix control. You lose your certificate (public key), no worries, Netflix issues a new one.
We are not talking magic people. All this can be done. OpenSSH can be done, go and get the source code. The concepts behind protecting copyright using GPLed software (the only license that ensures software remains available to all) are there, the bad choices of lock in technology (Silverlight) are evident. Now Netflix is betting their business model in whateer MS decides to do with Silverlight.
Dumb, dumb. dumb/
IANAL but write like a drunk one.