Native Netflix Support Is Coming To Linux

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Native Netflix Support Is Coming To Linux

Posted by Soulskill on Friday September 19, 2014 @02:17AM from the a-pittance-of-love dept.

sfcrazy writes: Native support for Netflix is coming to Linux, thanks to their move from Silverlight to HTML5, Mozilla and Google Chrome. Paul Adolph from Netflix proposed a solution to Ubuntu developers: "Netflix will play with Chrome stable in 14.02 if NSS version 3.16.2 or greater is installed. If this version is generally installed across 14.02, Netflix would be able to make a change so users would no longer have to hack their User-Agent to play." The newer version of NSS is set to go out with the next security update.

178 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Finally! by UnknowingFool · 2014-09-19 02:19 · Score: 1, Insightful

Netflix is slowly gaining trust again.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
1. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  Netflix is slowly gaining trust again.
  DRM hooks in HTML5, is there anything they can't do?
2. Re:Finally! by i+kan+reed · 2014-09-19 02:30 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It almost seems like an accident, though. They need to move to HTML5 because Microsoft supports its technologies like high school students support their relationships.
  It's just a coincidence that HTML5 also broadens deployment targets a little.
3. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 02:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It still feels weird to call it "HTML5", when the thing it really needs is a proprietary DRM module that isn't part of the HTML5 specs (nope, EME does not specific that part).
  This is also why it doesn't actually work in Firefox. Adobe was developing a DRM module for it, but they're not done yet. The actual HTML5 video stuff (MSE) that is required got added a while ago.
4. Re:Finally! by DoofusOfDeath · 2014-09-19 03:17 · Score: 2
  
  Netflix is slowly gaining trust again.
  Yes. Unfortunately, as my trust in them goes up, their useful library continues to shrink.
5. Re:Finally! by tepples · 2014-09-19 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  I imagine that the conditional access module stuff is easier to sandbox off from the rest of the browser than a comprehensive platform plug-in such as Flash.
6. Re: Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  I, for one, welcome our drm-laden, walled garden proprietary overlords!
7. Re: Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 03:55 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  I don't understand the fascination with entertainment. As an open source developer, I stick to my morals when it comes to software licensing. I'm proud to say that I've never WILLINGLY used a proprietary piece of software. Whenever the family wants to watch Netflix, I explain the implications that closed software has on a society and the problem is solved. My home network also blocks iPhones from connecting to it. Whenever someone asks for my wifi password, I tell them that Apple's proprietary system doesn't work with my faster network and go on to show them my Android phone and explain the benefits beyond a bigger screen. I remember at university whenever they required Windows 98 for a project and I had a nice chat with the CS chair about that, too.
  In short, the only benefit to Netflix is the opportunity to educate people that would otherwise never know the power of open source.
8. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  I know its not what you meant, but the HTML spec is basically swiss cheeze anyway, as are every specs that hit the W3C and similar organizations. So implementers have always had to fill in the gaps (and sometimes disagreed...when 2 browsers don't do the same thing, its not always because they aren't following the specs, its often because the spec sucks and is incomplete).
  Now this part is intentionally left blank, but....
9. Re: Finally! by Wootery · 2014-09-19 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  And the guy's name is Adolph - quickly, let Godwin's will be done!
10. Re: Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 04:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I don't think you understand what "walled garden" means. Just because getting things from the distro is more convenient, don't mean you are forced to.
11. Re:Finally! by westlake · 2014-09-19 05:10 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  It almost seems like an accident, though. They need to move to HTML5 because Microsoft supports its technologies like high school students support their relationships.
  12 years for Win XP.
  
  What is the difference between mainstream support and extended support?
  Mainstream support --- Microsoft will offer mainstream support for a minimum of 5 years from the date of a product's general availability, or for 2 years after the successor product is released, whichever is longer. For example, if you buy a new version of Windows and five years later another version is released, you will still have two years of support left for the previous version.
  Extended support --- Microsoft will offer extended support for either a minimum of 5 years from the date of a product's general availability, or for 2 years after the second successor product (two versions later) is released, whichever is longer.
  Windows lifecycle fact sheet
12. Re: Finally! by UnknowingFool · 2014-09-19 05:28 · Score: 2
  
  I don't understand the fascination with entertainment.
  I don't understand people who are dismissive of other people's choices of entertainment. Some people play video games. Some people play sports. Some people like having the ability to watch Doctor Who on demand whenever they want.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
13. Re:Finally! by houstonbofh · 2014-09-19 05:36 · Score: 2
  
  Lol! I was thinking the same thing. Last time I was at a friend's who has it we spent 10 minutes not finding anything to watch.
14. Re: Finally! by houstonbofh · 2014-09-19 05:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yes, "sudo add-apt-repository ppa:" is hard...
15. Re:Finally! by NotInHere · 2014-09-19 06:02 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Its also a general issue of browser plugins dying out. Silverlight and Flash had a reason when they were created. The web didn't support the things people wanted to use it for. Browsers were immature, and every browser and every version of a browser rendered different results. In the past decade, the browser vendors and w3c have worked hard to create an unified standardized platform to work on. With this platform, plugins are just obsolete. Even today they are a major cause for browser crashes. With IE11, even microsoft has added a serious contribution.
16. Re:Finally! by TemporalBeing · 2014-09-19 06:06 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  It almost seems like an accident, though. They need to move to HTML5 because Microsoft supports its technologies like high school students support their relationships.
  12 years for Win XP.
  However, Silverlight is already out of support. It didn't even make 3 years of support. I think the big thing that did it in was also the same thing that MS tried to show it off with - the Olympics on-line broadcasting in the US. Too many restrictions and it didn't go anywhere. NBC left it behind shortly after; an there has been zero large deployments of it since (at least any where near that scale).
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
17. Re:Finally! by What'sInAName · 2014-09-19 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  "Microsoft supports its technologies like high school students support their relationships."
  Excellent, I'm going to borrow that!
18. Re:Finally! by NotInHere · 2014-09-19 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  36 is the "earliest version": https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s....
  So everything is still broken, and it needs at least till 40 until its reliably usable.
19. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  Except EME mandates plugins. All the DRM magic is done inside a plugin.
20. Re: Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  This walled garden is also why Linux is perceived to be a secure OS
  That and the decades-old permissions-based security model that Microsoft still hasn't quite figured out.
21. Re:Finally! by NotInHere · 2014-09-19 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Except that of course. But when you refuse to install the CDM, you will only be stopped from using DRM'ed content. All other stuff nondrm-ed {games, videos, etc} will be accessible without plugins.
22. Re:Finally! by Art3x · 2014-09-19 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Silverlight and Flash had a reason when they were created.
  Flash had a reason when it was created. Silverlight did not.
23. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 11:15 · Score: 0
  
  you do realize this is only via chrome on linux right? where DRM is already baked right into chrome via new html standards that google was an integral part of getting in the standard to begin with?
  so what trust has been gained? our open platform now has DRM inside, and netflix will only run on the google browser which already runs this stuff... whats the difference between this and adobe/silverlight? You've gained trust nor freedom
24. Re: Finally! by chrisfargen7499 · 2014-09-19 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  In short, the only benefit to Netflix is the opportunity to educate people that would otherwise never know the power of open source.
  There's the goal of educating people, which is noble, and then there's proselytizing, which tends to make them stop listening.
  If you wanna win people over to FOSS, a great way to do it is to show them some awesome projects you've worked on, made using free utilities (e.g., vim, audacity, gimp, openshot...), running on a free operating system. Show them how you obtained full wifi coverage in your apartment by installing openwrt on a clunky old router and configuring it as a wireless repeater.
  The way to open people's minds to open source is not by closing your mind to closed source. Instead, show them all the cool stuff you can do for cheap. It's a much less abrasive approach!
25. Re: Finally! by Kalium70 · 2014-09-19 12:09 · Score: 2
  
  The fun never stops at your house. (Probably because it never starts.)
26. Re: Finally! by Parker+Lewis · 2014-09-19 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  And the discussion is to add the package to 14.04, so soon, it'll come as an automatic update.
27. Re:Finally! by Le+Marteau · 2014-09-19 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  You get what you pay for. It's eight bucks a month. What did you expect?
  
  --
  Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
28. Re:Finally! by Le+Marteau · 2014-09-19 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  I mean, look at Amazon. To watch the Hunger Games sequel: 14$. For one day.
  
  --
  Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
29. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 16:21 · Score: 0
  
  s/3 years/7 years/
30. Re:Finally! by Barsteward · 2014-09-19 20:52 · Score: 1
  
  Silverlight was created to try and EEE as usual
  
  --
  "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
31. Re:Finally! by eriqk · 2014-09-21 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  So everything is still broken, and it needs at least till 40 until its reliably usable.
  Fortunately, that will only take a couple of days.
32. Re:Finally! by Alarash · 2014-09-22 00:10 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft video streaming technology over HTTP works just fine and is still fully supported and improved upon, last I checked. It's one of the 4 major implementation of Adaptive Bitrate Streaming (Apple HLS, MPEG DASH, Adobe Zeri and Microsoft Smooth/HDS). The Silverlight requirement was there because the client needs logic to switch up (or down) in bitrate depending on network conditions - instead of buffering, hence the "adaptive" part. The specification is open and anybody can implement it. The DRM part is optional, it's not Microsoft (or Apple or MPEG or Adobe or Netflix) fault it exists, it's the movie/show producers.
  To make it "HTML5" somebody just needs to make a ABR client that will replace a browser's interpretation of the "video" or whatever tag Netflix uses on web pages. A set-top box doesn't need that, it can just connect over HTTP through a REST service to request the video manifest (the file that contains the URI of video fragments).
33. Re:Finally! by houstonbofh · 2014-09-22 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  You get what you pay for. It's eight bucks a month. What did you expect?
  At least one movie...
34. Re:Finally! by Le+Marteau · 2014-09-22 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  One movie, coming up:
  "Sling Blade".
  You'll thank me later.
  (I reckon I'll have me some of the bigguns. Ummmm hmmm.)
  
  --
  Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
35. Re:Finally! by houstonbofh · 2014-09-23 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  That I don't already own. :)
I must be dreaming. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 02:24 · Score: 1

Drat, now I can't complain about how all the big businesses hate linux desktop users.
When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by DarkOx · 2014-09-19 02:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox; that is what I care about, Chrome's interface sucks! and I don't want to run two browsers.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
1. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  Welcome to four years ago, when you could say that with a straight face and be right about it. These days.. not so much. You really have to have something against Mozilla or Firefox to make such a claim these days, or happen to be running into weird bugs without having any willingness to help them fix them.
2. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 02:42 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Amusingly, they're relying on NSS, a Mozilla library, to get it working with Chrome. But to answer your question, Firefox support is being actively developed, now that Google have mostly ceased screwing around with the specs for MSE and EME and HTML5 video in general. It's still a few versions away at least, since it's a lot of work, and that's assuming that Netflix supports them. Last I checked the only people willing to write an EME module for Firefox were Adobe, and it's not ready yet either.
3. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by rikkards · 2014-09-19 02:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Screw that when will XBMC have support for it.
4. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree. I deal with several browsers quite often. Firefox runs faster than Chrome and it uses less processes. I also like the interface better on Firefox, even though it's starting to look like Chrome. Chrome lost its place as a secondary browser when it started to require having a Google account to install addons.
5. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Cajun+Hell · 2014-09-19 02:43 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  (I'm not even sure why you'd want to use any web browser at all for this kind of thing. They should just make XBMC, MythTV, etc plugins. No, scratch that: they should publish APIs, and then let those teams write the plugins themselves. But anyway...)
  If a vendor can't use standards well enough to be compatible with what you use, then just pirate. They'll either supply the files that you can use, or someone else will.
  I don't see the problem, unless it's that you feel compelled to fight someone who tells you they don't want your money. If that's the case, then get over it. You can't make someone be greedy, and it'd be a pretty shitty world if you could.
  
  --
  "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
6. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Ost99 · 2014-09-19 02:46 · Score: 2
  
  It already works with XBMC on Linux with pipelight and full screen browser to show he video.
  
  --
  ---- Sig. gone.
7. Re: When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  To be fair, Firefox's UI does suck, too, now that it's pretty much identical to Chrome's these days.
  It's no wonder so many people have been moving from Firefox to Chrome. Chrome only gives a partially bad experience, compared to Firefox's completely bad experience.
8. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Shaman · 2014-09-19 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Unsubtle troll is unsubtle.
  
  --
  ...Steve
9. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  Don't run 2 browsers. Run Firefox. Use chrome only for Netflix. This is no different from using a separate desktop application. Is that so bad?
10. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by CastrTroy · 2014-09-19 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Really this is the answer. To use Netflix, you need to pay for an account. And it has TV shows and movies. It's not like Youtube where somebody links you it and you just go watch a short clip and go back to your browsing. Things like Netflix don't need to run in a web browser at all. They just need to make full applications (or plugins in the case of XBMC and others) for all the platforms worth supporting.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
11. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by SpzToid · 2014-09-19 02:58 · Score: 2
  
  XBMC supports UPnP just fine, and if you can manage to run a headless Windows server and playon.tv, then you're golden. UPnP folks. UPnP.
  
  --
  You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
12. Re: When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by DarkVader · 2014-09-19 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...
  That fixes the problem.
  And then Firefox is again in every way superior to Chrome.
13. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by flu1d · 2014-09-19 02:59 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I'm outraged I can't watch Netflix on my Lynx browser!
14. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by NotFamous · 2014-09-19 03:01 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox; that is what I care about, Chrome's interface sucks! and I don't want to run two browsers.
  I'm waiting on Lynx support using ASCII. Damn!
  
  --
  Some settling may occur during posting.
15. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  Things like Netflix don't need to run in a web browser at all. They just need to make full applications (or plugins in the case of XBMC and others) for all the platforms worth supporting.
  Unfortunately, Hulu gave up on this ideal as of January 31st this year.
  
  (posting anon to not remove mods)
16. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  Requiring a Windows server defeats the whole point!
17. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by wolrahnaes · 2014-09-19 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  Mozilla hasn't made any notable public comments I can find since acknowledging that they would support EME (Encrypted Media Extensions) back in May. I do not see anything about the feature having made it to even the trunk yet, so it'll probably be a while.
  Also curious, what difference do you see between Firefox and Chrome as far as UI? I'm on a Windows machine right now so I can't verify if it's the same on Linux but aside from slightly rounder tabs and more blue Firefox 32 looks pretty much the same as Chrome 39. Firefox has a separate search bar by default and the back/forward/refresh layout is a bit different but if I ignore the extra buttons my various extensions have added to both the color scheme is the most significant difference.
  
  --
  I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
18. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  Or don't use Netflix at all
19. Re: When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 03:26 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I don't see the identicalness you guys keep insisting is there. I really don't. If that's what you consider "identical" to Chrome, then Chrome's UI is identical to Firefox 2's, and Firefox 2's is identical to any other tabbed browser. Seriously. Even on startup it looks obviously different to me, and the moment I start actually using the browser it's as different as these things can be without looking alien... the tabs look different, the menu is different, the address bar dropdown is different, and that's not even counting how easily you can customize it to look vastly different... or how obviously differently it behaves. I honestly don't see any case that can be made to claim it's "identical" to Chrome. Nor that it's inferior - but that's a debate to have with people who aren't so invested in the old UI that they consider any change to be detrimental.
20. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by dugancent · 2014-09-19 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  The new interface is horrible.
  
  --
  SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
21. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by DarkOx · 2014-09-19 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  I listed SeaMonkey first for a reason that is the browser I use. First because it comes with a mail client that runs in process, and I need a mail client running most of the time anyway. The IRC client is not great but its useable. Finally the browser UI itself is sane, If you get rid the "home" bar which you can the interface is not cluttered but does put the tools you need for the web at your finger tips; rather than hiding them.
  I don't get the minimalist interface crap, no I don't need fifty bars and side panels, but there is plenty of room for useful things like the address bar, status bar, and menu bar + nav buttons. Why that can't be displayed with a "full screen mode" option for when you really need the space is baffling to me. Did everyone go back to 640x480 and not send me the memo or something?
  I basically included Firefox because its the same HTML rendering engine underneath so when one gets support the other browser will as well; and if you don't want to use SeaMonkey for some reason the Firefox UI can be "fixed" with a few plugins.
  Thanks for pointing out the issue is EME; was not sure what the missing feature secret sauce was. Now I'll know what to watch for in the change logs!
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
22. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by shadowknot · 2014-09-19 03:36 · Score: 2
  
  That's a completely fair criticism of Firefox. Thankfully there's something one can do about it, Classic Theme Restorer is fantastic. I'm not a fan of the Chrome look and feel so this suits me well.
23. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Aggrajag · 2014-09-19 03:37 · Score: 2
  
  Requiring a running server is IMHO against the idea of having a HTPC.
  Does playon.tv support HD content from Netflix?
24. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by serviscope_minor · 2014-09-19 03:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I'm waiting on Lynx support using ASCII. Damn!
  Well oddly enough if it didn't have DRM then that would work.
  You see, lynx can fire off MPlayer and MPlayer has an aalib and libcaca output mode allowing it to play in a terminal in monochrome or in colour.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
25. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by matthias.loeffel · 2014-09-19 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  How is running a server conflicting against the idea of a HTPC? Just launch qemu/kvm/vbox somewhere in your init and you won't notice that you are running "a server".
26. Re: When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  I agree.
  Search for dwb or conkeror (there are many others) for a really different experience.
27. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  It's not fair at all. It's just an empty statement; it doesn't say what makes it horrible. Frankly it's just childish.
28. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  But you still have to manage it. And who wants to manage windows, ugh.
29. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  They are, however, busily implementing EME, regardless of any public statements. A quick glance on Bugzilla shows how much effort they've been putting into it since May (as well as MSE and Dash support, which is almost usable now).
  As for differences between Firefox and Chrome, open a few tabs and note how the "background" tabs are very different to Chrome's. Then open more tabs until there are too many to display at once and see how the two differ. Then click the menu ("hamburger") icons on both. Note the "keyhole" back/forward buttons (or maybe that's not for every OS?). Also note the bar off add-on icons beside the address bar, if you have any installed. That's not even considering how alien the Chrome window decorations look compared to how other apps, unless you tell it to show window manager decorations (on Linux anyway, maybe they've fixed this on Windows/OSX by now). Finally note how the "new tab" page shows bigger thumbnails, rather than making the Google logo the most prominent feature there.
30. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by mattventura · 2014-09-19 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  It's less of it being horrible and more of it being "If I wanted a chrome-like browser, I'd just use chrome". I shouldn't have to install a bunch of plugins and mess around with about:config just to keep my browsing experience the same as it was in the 2.0 days.
  You pretty much have to install classic theme restorer, something to disable "switch to tab" (or hold a modifier key every time), something to restore the status bar, and various about:config stuff to undo changes to the URL bar.
  I'm actually glad Debian is 8 firefox versions behind, less work for me.
31. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by houstonbofh · 2014-09-19 05:41 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  wget is still broken too... Bastards.
32. Re: When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by mattventura · 2014-09-19 05:41 · Score: 1
  Well, a few firefox changes I can name off the top of my head are:
  
  Tabs on top. Used to have an option to put tabs back on the bottom, but this seems to have been removed.
  Trying to replace as much menu functionality as possible with text-less buttons (at least they still give you the option to have menus, but other features are less fortunate).
  Status bar gone (although this one is old). There used to be a half-assed "addon bar" where you could put addons' buttons, but it wouldn't even bother to put the former status bar content back in there.
  Hiding parts of the URL.
  Right now, I've got both browsers up, and the UIs are literally identical except for the exact layout of buttons on the toolbar. And the fact that firefox's default UI no longer seems to use your GTK theme, while chrome still does. Firefox is just trying to clone the chrome UI but does a poor job of it.
33. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Did everyone go back to 640x480 and not send me the memo or something?
  No, they downgraded from 1280x1024 to 1366x768, because HDTV. Now they have no vertical space to spare.
34. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  Ah. So basically: let's make false equivalences to Chrome and pretend it's some looming threat, instead of being honest that we're sick of customizing Firefox and that we would rather it catered to us first, by keeping a notoriously buggy UI instead of taking risks in order to fix them? Sounds about right.
35. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Microlith · 2014-09-19 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  It might seem dumb, but if Firefox hung back it'd be a point people would criticize them over. So in the end Mozilla can't win, if they stay behind they get criticized - if they move forward they get criticized.
  The advantage is the flexibility is enough that even now my Firefox looks like it did in v3.5, at least on my desktop and laptop. The important thing is that it's a 3rd party browser that is extremely advanced, and can compete with the 800lb gorillas. It's better than using inflexible browsers like Chrome.
36. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by rikkards · 2014-09-19 06:16 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry let me rephrase that (while I move the goalposts), when will it work on my Pi with Xbian?
37. Re: When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  Interesting. On my Linux box it uses my GTK window manager decorations, while Chrome doesn't.
  Also, just be honest please. Don't conflate the removal of a few features you liked with it "becoming Chrome". You can still easily bring back those features, unlike in Chrome. Moreover it's pretty trite to attribute all of these changes to Chrome, when ALL browsers are basically melding into one similar start-up screen. But nobody just sits there staring at the browser, they use it. And once you do, it becomes obviously different. So why all the hubbub?
38. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by mattventura · 2014-09-19 06:29 · Score: 2
  
  What "false equivalencies"? When I look at firefox 31 and chromium 35 side-by-side with a fresh profile, the only major difference in UI is that Firefox doesn't combine URL and search bars. The other differences are trivial, namely:
  1. Firefox puts some buttons on different places on the toolbar
  2. Firefox doesn't follow my GTK theme for buttons
  And yes, I'd rather Firefox catered to Firefox users. What's so wrong with that? Right now they're trying to cater to Chrome users/potential Chrome users, which is idiotic because they're not going to sway anybody from using Chrome by making a poor imitation of it. In everything from the UI to version numbering, it's hard to deny that they're just trying to copy google.
  They're not "fixing" their UI in the least bit, they're just driving users away from it as shown by their marketshare numbers.
39. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by jordanjay29 · 2014-09-19 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, boo on progress! How dare the silly programs introduce new features! Let's just make our world a perpetual 1999.
40. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  http://imgur.com/c9lneKf,x5PReWP
  Tell me those fresh profile defaults look the same to you. Even if I disabled the extra search bar that came up on Firefox for whatever reason. Even if you'd discount the fresh install page, and make both browsers go to a purely blank page. And that's how different they look to me on XP and OSX, though to be fair I'm sure there's a chance that on your system they look perfectly identical for some reason. And if THAT is what counts as "trivial differences" to you, then compare it to how Firefox 2.0 looked. It's STILL not appreciably different from Chrome by your own standards.
  And look, I'm glad you think you're so important that what you want is what all Firefox users want, and that you can magically say their marketshare is dwindling because of Australis (when it's not, post-Australis numbers are no worse for the wear, actual telemetry shows more usage of Firefox since it was released). But they honestly can't win with you guys. Half of you want them to keep a crufty, buggy old UI, and the other half want them to fix it to behave more like modern browsers (not just Chrome, mind you). But ALL of you think you're #1, and every Firefox user is like you, and that everyone else should be using another browser or have to suffer installing those wretched addon things to customize their experience from these allegedly-insufferable defaults.
  Apparently everything that goes against your "wisdom" is garbage and MUST be causing their downfall - even when it's clearly not.
41. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Ost99 · 2014-09-19 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know of any way to get it to work on a Rpi at the moment.
  If you have a x86/x64 server somewhere in the house you could try to stream the output from the browser running on the server - or something like that. But I'm guessing the DRM will get in your way.
  http://www.playon.tv/playon does something like this from a Windows PC to XBMC - but at $70 I would look elsewhere.
  
  --
  ---- Sig. gone.
42. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by mattventura · 2014-09-19 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Since when does change imply progress? I guess MS made great progress with Metro. What about Microsoft Bob? Was that progress?
  
  Turns out people have these things called "opinions". People who have the opinion that Chrome's UI style is better can use Chrome. People who prefer Firefox's old UI now have nowhere to turn other than Firefox with a bunch of addons and config tweaks to try to get it as close as possible as it used to be.
  
  But really, the only thing we have to look at here is Firefox's plummetting marketshare. Chrome does a great job of being Chrome, while Firefox does an awful job of being Firefox.
43. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by jordanjay29 · 2014-09-19 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Except the whole draw of Firefox is its extensibility. If you just wanted a browser that wasn't Internet Explorer, why not use Chrome? Or Opera? Or Seamonkey? The whole problem that you've devised is in your head, not at Mozilla or the Firefox devs. If you don't like the UI, change it, that's the point.
44. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  Can we please stop pretending that Australis and a few option changes are what's killing Firefox's marketshare? It's flatly untrue. The more you say it, the more obvious it is that you're trying to build a narrative to support your need to vilify Australis and reversible UI changes in general. There was a time a few years ago when Chrome came out and people left Firefox because it was too crufty and Chrome was the hot new jam. But that's not been the reason for the decline for a good couple of years now.
  Now the real reason Firefox market share is diminishing is because people are steadily leaving desktop computers behind them, and Firefox barely has a presence on mobile OSes (where two of the three vendors have locked Firefox out, not that it matters given how few people care to change their browsers on mobiles anyway, nor can they hope to compete with the marketing machines supporting the OS makers).
45. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by mattventura · 2014-09-19 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  That's a great point. Now answer this: why should the burden of installing addons which change the browser's look/feel/behavior fall on the people who don't want it to change? If someone wants a different UI, they can install addons to change it to how they want. I'd rather the mozilla devs just do their job: make a basic browser where people can add what features they want and customize the UI to their liking. Fix bugs, reduce memory usage, keep up with web standards.
  
  I remember when they first announced they were going to put tabs on top. There was a decent amount of debate about it. Guess what controversy means? It means you should make it an option. There's obviously enough people on each side such that it should be an option (which, admittedly, they did. For a while, and then they killed it).
  
  Besides, the original point still stands: why try to be a poor imitation of Chrome? Where did Mozilla's innovation go?
46. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by mattventura · 2014-09-19 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Fixing bugs doesn't require a total redesign (especially not one that blatantly copies another browser that they just so happened to be losing a ton of marketshare to).
  
  As for your screenshots, once you look past the fact that the UI elements are themed differently (ironically, I used to dislike Chrome because it didn't follow the OS's theme closely whereas Firefox did, but now it's the other way around), you see they both have essentially the same layout. Titlebar/pseudo-titlebar on top, tabs next, then the third layer has navigation buttons, an address/search bar (split into 2 in firefox, although mostly unecessary since the address bar can also search), then a bookmark button, and finally a thing that replaces the menubar (which chrome does better). Then it's the page, and at the bottom each browser does not have a status bar, but rather just shows you the URL of a hovered link in a box that pops up when necessary.
  
  Now compare that to an older Firefox, which has: Full title bar on top, real menu bar (which, in older versions was just a normal UI element, in other words you could move it and put other stuff on the same toolbar. Useful for small screens since you could put bookmarks beside it), then navigation toolbar, with a URL bar that wouldn't hide stuff from the user by default, and the search bar. Then it was a tab bar, the page content, and a normal status bar. I think it's perfectly safe to say that Firefox looks more like Chrome than previous versions of Firefox.
  
  Seriously, it can't be that hard to just have a flexible UI where I can put the stuff where I want, and choose what toolbars to show/hide. I know that it's not hard, because they did exactly that years ago. Someone wants the status bar gone? Great, they can disable it. Someone wants tabs on top? I'm sure there's an addon for that.
47. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by rikkards · 2014-09-19 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly I don't want to be using some kind of middleman service. I want it native.
48. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by phoenix_rizzen · 2014-09-19 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Runs what faster than Chrome? JavaScript? Nope. HTML rendering? Nope. Loading web pages in general? Nope. Starting up from disk? Nope.
  Firefox used to be the lean and mean alternative browser. Then Chrome came along and showed everyone just how slow and bloated Firefox has become (which just shows how slow IE is).
  The only thing Firefox has left as positive features are extensions and plugins. In every other way, it's been surpassed by Chrome, Safari, and sometimes even IE11+.
49. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 10:07 · Score: 0
  
  >I'm sure there's an addon for that.
  Exactly. Stop bitching. They don't have all the time in the world to maintain all of these features, so just install the addons to bring them back and stop whining about it.
  Christ, it's like you people are princesses with a pea under your 20 mattresses. Next you'll be telling me that it's not real choice if they don't do all of the work for you.
  Which do you want? A lean browser that can be extended, or one riddled with partly-working buggy features that routinely cause issues for other users?
  And don't bother telling me that if that's what I want, I should just use Chrome. I want something BETTER than Chrome, and I don't frankly care if it looks a bit more like Chrome than it used to.
50. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by jordanjay29 · 2014-09-19 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  You mean let the whole UI stagnate so that the small minority can be satisfied? I don't think you understand how products are made. Yes, of course the onus is on you to make a customizable product look the way you want it to.
  
  Besides, you can make the FF UI look like anything you want. Here's what a friend has his looking like, which is nothing like how I'd want to use a browser, but it shows off the extensibility of Firefox: http://i.imgur.com/587msTp.jpg
51. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by mattventura · 2014-09-19 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  There's absolutely nothing wrong with a UI "stagnating". A *nix shell is one of the most powerful user interfaces, and yet it's been mostly unchanged for ages.
  
  You only need change in a UI if there was something wrong with it to begin with. When people want change for the sake of change, you get abominations like Metro and Gnome 3. Tell me, what's the actual goal of Mozilla's UI changes? Is there some clear UX goal here? Does it take less clicks to do the same task? Is it more intuitive for new users? I don't see how cramming everything into one menu achieves any of that, nor do I see how making it look and feel different than every other GUI program on the user's PC makes it more intuitive.
52. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by mattventura · 2014-09-19 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  The exact reasons for their loss of marketshare doesn't change the fact that trying to copy another browser and doing it rather poorly isn't going to get them anywhere soon.
53. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, they did exactly that years ago, and it proved to be hard to do. That's why they fell behind and it took them three or four years to get Firefox even remotely close to modern. It's basic engineering to start with something simple and make it easy to add onto it, rather than start with something bloated full of features and add MORE to it to REMOVE from it. If you don't agree then you clearly don't understand why Opera failed, or why Chrome is truly able to keep their product moving so much faster than others are. This all simple sounds easy to do; but it's not. If it was then Firefox would have still been ahead of the curve years ago. It's not they just stopped developing it while Chrome overtook it.
54. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 11:20 · Score: 0
  
  So this is obviously a joke, but it would be very amusing to see someone take the ascii-art output modes that VLC and MPlayer have and work out a plugin for a text based browser such that it would work.
  Useful? Not even a little. Fun, however? Hell yes.
55. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  Seamonkey's biggest issue for me was always that it's list of supported extensions has always paled in comparison with Firefox (and things only got worse when Firefox contracted a severe case of versionitis). And vastly better extension support is what keeps Firefox relevant despite some of the various performance improvements to be had with Webkit. And while I applaud the efforts of Chrome/Chromium devs for at least attempting to remedy the issue with extensions, in a good number of cases, the reason we don't see the functionality entirely being ported over is that the way Webkit works simply precludes certain tasks. It's why ScriptNo will never be as good as NoScript, and as to why anyone thinks it's a good idea to browse the web in 2014 without NoScript...well, that's beyond me.
56. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 13:07 · Score: 0
  
  >>A *nix shell is one of the most powerful user interfaces, and yet it's been mostly unchanged for ages.
  Shhh.... Lennart will hear you.
57. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 14:04 · Score: 0
  
  The fact that you make such claims doesn't make them true either. Marketshare is a function of how well-known a product is, and Mozilla simply cannot compete with the combined advertising might of Google, Apple and Microsoft, much like Opera couldn't. It's easy to focus on a few cherry-picked changes to build some narrative that they're just out to copy Chrome, when they clearly aren't. But hey, I guess your brand of dissembling is easier than actually helping them better the browser.
58. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 16:04 · Score: 0
  
  You're still living in 2008, I see. Firefox is now a close #2 in all the categories that you listed, and #1 in others that you curiously didn't list: RAM usage, correctly loading pages the first time, and other metrics that I'm sure you conveniently don't care about. In fact, even Toms Hardware realized that it's not nearly as bad as you seem to think it is, and they awarded it a #1 spot for being a good all-rounder.
  I guess you guys just like hearing yourselves talk negatively about Firefox or something, like some sort of weird cult hoping to shame Mozilla. It seems like that you wouldn't notice how good Firefox had become if it cured cancer and gave you a reach-around for good measure. It's always negativity from you. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you contributed nothing but negativity.
59. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Aggrajag · 2014-09-20 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Why haven't I never thought about emulating the server on the client. Thanks for the idea!
  The only downside is that playon.tv doesn't support HD content on XBMC.
60. Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by matthias.loeffel · 2014-09-20 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  I find the idea very interesting if you plan your HTPC to be a virtual machine host in first place. Using vt-d to pass-trough devices like VGA and dvb tuners to your vms. Which would also allow you to occasionally fire up a windows machine for a gaming session and take full advantage of the gpu or just to tinker with new applications without having to taint your whole media center. It may not be the most practical solution, but I also like to do stuff just because I can :-)
But the movie selection still sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 02:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

Except... I just took a look at instantwatcher.com yesterday to see what was trending, and their movie selection is still shit. There was a time years ago when that list would be full of recognizeable indy and blockbuster movies, at least ones that I recognized and would like to watch. Now I see a few but I have zero desire to reactivate that account. I would have been all over this a couple years ago. I'm writing this while running the latest Linux Mint btw.
1. Re:But the movie selection still sucks by CastrTroy · 2014-09-19 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  For $8 a month they offer a pretty good selection. I remember when blockbuster was still around, and they were charging almost as much for a single rental. Renting a single movie on iTunes will set you back around $5. Premiums channels like HBO cost $15+ a month, and you have to already have a cable subscription. Sure Netflix may not have everything, but they have a pretty good selection given the price they are asking. I definitely get my $8 worth every month. I guess it would be nice if their selection were better, or if they had an option for $25 for every movie and every TV show in existence, but that option doesn't exist anywhere. If Netflix isn't good, who offers a better deal?
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
2. Re:But the movie selection still sucks by Tyler+Durden · 2014-09-19 03:16 · Score: 2
  
  You can find a selection of pretty good movies they offer here. I ended up watching Dredd and was blown away - something I wouldn't have done if not for word of mouth. (So you're trying to tell me someone made another movie on Judge Dredd that's actually good?) And of course, sometimes the movies you at first don't recognize end up being the ones you love the most.
  
  --
  Happy people make bad consumers.
3. Re:But the movie selection still sucks by xfizik · 2014-09-19 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  You think Netflix's selection is shit? Try Netflix Canada. They'd have to pay me to subscribe to their service.
4. Re:But the movie selection still sucks by DoofusOfDeath · 2014-09-19 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  For $8 a month they offer a pretty good selection.
  I agree, assuming that selection includes movies I actually want to see. Now it mostly doesn't, so its value to me is approaching $0, sadly.
5. Re:But the movie selection still sucks by nine-times · 2014-09-19 03:30 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Yeah, Netflix should get their act together and stop showing shit movies like "The Elephant Man" and "There Will Be Blood". Comedies like "Grosse Pointe Blank" and "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure"? Who would ever want to watch those? Netflix is absolutely useless unless they can show truly great movies like "Transformers 4: Age of Extinction".
6. Re:But the movie selection still sucks by DarkOx · 2014-09-19 03:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I agree I like Netflix a lot. $8 a month is a bargain compared to pretty much every other option.
  I am going to go see the major "Block Buster" titles I am actually interested ( maybe three of four a year ) at the cinema with buddies; those are social events and quite honestly, (/me ducks the incomming flames) movies like Avengers while good are only great out with pals. Take the social component away and try watching the film alone in your living room and its far less compelling.
  Maybe its because I don't generally watch movies for the sake who can show me the most photo real destruction of NYC and the occasional boom mike or obvious cardboard cutout in the shot does not ruin the suspension of disbelief for me; but I find that many of the Indie stuff Netflix offers me is just as entertaining as the AAA stuff Hollywood churns out. In the end that is what I want out of it to relax and be entertained.
  Rating everything definitely helps you get good suggestions and the flat rate all you can eat model makes it safe to take a chance on something. If after 30min you find you are not enjoying a flick switch to something else and you are not out anything more than a little time. Even placing $2 bets on iTunes or something you could easily exceed the cost of Netflix without having had much fun to show for it.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
7. Re:But the movie selection still sucks by Anubis+IV · 2014-09-19 03:58 · Score: 2
  
  Your logic is all flipped. The question you should be asking is simply, "Am I getting $8 worth of entertainment?" Netflix has never had a great selection of the latest stuff (even back a few years ago it wasn't that great), so if you're analyzing the value proposition through that lens, you're ignoring the actual value that it provides. Rather than asking what they don't have, the type of question that should be asked is if what they do have is worth the paltry asking price.
  The more I've used Netflix, the better it's gotten at making recommendations, and at this point my queue is mostly filled up with great movies I either missed the first time around or had never even heard of at all but which Netflix recommended to me. And while it definitely doesn't hit a home run with each and every one of them, it's better at providing good recommendations than most of my friends are, so I'm getting tremendous value out of the service since it's supplying me with an endless stream of films I'm enjoying, despite it lacking the latest and greatest. But for those times when I'm impatient and can't wait to watch something that was just released, only paying $8/mo. for Netflix means that it's easy to justify supplementing it with rentals from Amazon, iTunes, Redbox, or some other service.
  I find that I'm much happier in life if I stop asking what I lack, and start focusing on what I have. Maybe Netflix really doesn't offer any value to you since you're only interested in watching new releases, and if that's the case, that's fine. But if you have any interest at all in watching stuff you may have missed the first time around, Netflix continues to be an absolutely incredible deal, and it'd be a shame if you missed out on it because you couldn't look past its lack in another area.
8. Re:But the movie selection still sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 04:01 · Score: 0
  
  You had me, till you mentioned Transformers
9. Re:But the movie selection still sucks by UnknowingFool · 2014-09-19 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Same here. At first I assumed Hollywood was out of ideas and just rehashing older movies like Total Recall. But the original Stallone Dredd was terrible so my expectations were low. I guess this is why remakes are a good idea sometimes; they can be better than the original.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
10. Re:But the movie selection still sucks by pnutjam · 2014-09-19 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Netflix canada has some selections that aren't available in the US. It's missing some, but I like the selection. (not canadian)
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
11. Re:But the movie selection still sucks by UnknowingFool · 2014-09-19 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  For me, some of my selections are TV shows I simply was too busy to be at home whenever they originally aired. I can go back and now watch them at my convenience not network scheduling. For example I started watching Lost but got busy with one work in the 2nd season. I couldn't really catch up at the time which meant all subsequent seasons were out of the question as they story progresses from season to season.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
12. Re:But the movie selection still sucks by houstonbofh · 2014-09-19 05:45 · Score: 2
  
  I guess it would be nice if their selection were better, or if they had an option for $25 for every movie and every TV show in existence, but that option doesn't exist anywhere.
  Yes it does. It ain't legal, but it exists all over the place. And if the industry would get it's collective heads out of it's collective asses (Or the ass in front of it) it would wake up and realize that people would pay a LOT of money for a legal Pirate Bay. And in actuality, a lot of them are. Secure VPNs and seedboxes ain't free.
13. Re:But the movie selection still sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  Well said.
  
  I find that I'm much happier in life if I stop asking what I lack, and start focusing on what I have.
  Now that you've discovered one of the keys to happiness, keep it to yourself. If word gets out, our materialistic, instant-gratification-obsessed culture is going to stop spending its way into debt and our economy, built on the promise of digital pleasure, will collapse.
  Maybe that's a bit harsh; maybe not.
  (AC to preserve mods)
14. Re:But the movie selection still sucks by Darinbob · 2014-09-19 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  Netflix has Sharknado. That's something you can rewatch every weekend, as long as you drink.
15. Re:But the movie selection still sucks by Darinbob · 2014-09-19 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Ya, I'm getting $7 worth of entertainment. A bigger selection than my satellite subscription, except for the current shows. However the number of current shows I was watching had greatly shrunk. Plus I'm getting high def tv, even many of the old shows from the 60s are much clearer and crisper (those that were originally shot on film).
  I was going to pay another $8 for Hulu Plus for some of the current shows now that the seasons have started up. Except that they're not showing Doctor Who despite the big press release last year that they were continuing to get the rights to the show (if I have to wait until the season is over, I may as well get it on Netflix!). That only leaves Walking Dead, and I doubt I'd pay $8/month just for one show.
16. Re:But the movie selection still sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  As the anonymous coward who wrote this parent post, I hear all that, $8 worth of value... But I had been a netflix subscriber for many years, and there was definitely a humongous loss in the quality of their offerings. Yeah, there are some good movies available, but it's just not worth it to me anymore. And as for making movie recommendations, holy cow was I ever disappointed with that. I also remember what they were doing before they instituted this recommendation system, and it was far, far more useful to me.
  You guys are right when you say this is a better value than renting single movies and that there are no other legal options. I'm just saying that I definitely remember a time when I was a subscriber and that top 50 website would be chock full of *newly available* good content (not blockbusters, just new to instant watching). They just don't put out much new stuff that's worth watching. So maybe it's too much to ask for $8 a month now. And yeah, I would gladly pay twice or triple that if they could raise their quality of content and keep a high turnover. Which, to keep repeating myself, they had before the whole netflix splitting fiasco and licensing problem. It's been downhill ever since.
  And by this time, they will have deleted the thousands of ratings I made and the hundreds of reviews I gave, and this is after being a member for, IDK 5-8 years? So the only reason I'll have to go back is when they get the new House of Cards season up. And btw, I love Dredd. :) I'm fairly sure that was one of the last things I watched on netflix, like a year ago. Again, lack of turnover. Is it a great value for those of you who don't watch a lot of movies and TV and what you want to watch is on there? Sure!
Niche market... but a good niche... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 02:32 · Score: 0

I'm a bit surprised it took this long to support non-Redmond OS. A technical marvel or what?
1. Re:Niche market... but a good niche... by tepples · 2014-09-19 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  True, Microsoft (Windows, Xbox) and Nintendo (Wii) are in Redmond, but I was under the impression that Netflix had long worked on Apple (Mac, iOS) and Sony (PlayStation) devices.
2. Re:Niche market... but a good niche... by UnknowingFool · 2014-09-19 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  More like DRM practicalities. That's why you could get Netflix on iOS and Android and Macs and consoles.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
3. Re:Niche market... but a good niche... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, it's been available for Windows, Mac, Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, iOS, Android, Roku (and other set-top boxen) for quite some time. It's desktop Linux availability that's the anomaly, but it makes sense if you think of target markets: it's the smallest share among the aforementioned, and even if an XBMC plugin makes total sense from a technical standpoint, it has to make business sense from Netflix's point of view.
When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 02:32 · Score: 0, Insightful

Firefox's everything else sucks, though
DRM should not be in HTML5 by ciaran2014 · 2014-09-19 02:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Accommodating Netflix is often cited as a reason for pushing DRM into HTML5, but this is a fallacy. Leaving aside one's opinion of Netflix, or even the general existence of DRM, it's perfectly possible to have the big DRM companies to solve their problems by using a privately negotiated addition to the HTML5 standard. There's no reason to put it into HTML5.
Many lovers of free software have been pushing for open standards for years, but now we're headed to a situation where someone can request a HTML5-compliant DRM implementation. When we say "use open standards!", they'll reply they're using HTML5. And free software is frozen out completely.
What can one do? Well, the least one can do is sign FSF's petition:
https://www.defectivebydesign.... ...and spread the word that we don't want DRM in W3C stanardards.

--
Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
1. Re:DRM should not be in HTML5 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  Companies want the DRM there so they can (try to) prevent customers recording programs which are intended only for streaming. I do not see that requirement to be terribly unfair, especially in the case of Netflix who does sell any content which I get real ownership for anyway. Instead of those FSF's petitions, it would be much more effective to support places like the GOG movie store, which already sell DRM-free content.
2. Re:DRM should not be in HTML5 by jedidiah · 2014-09-19 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  These DRM laden video formats aren't any less crapulent on Windows. Unfortunately they aren't just used for video but also for basic site navigation. So you get a pervasive level of crapulence even with Windows.
  It's not just a Linux problem.
  Windows users perhaps just suffer from a certain level of "muggle numbness".
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
3. Re:DRM should not be in HTML5 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  >it's perfectly possible to have the big DRM companies to solve their problems by using a privately negotiated addition to the HTML5 standard
  That's what they did. The "standard" part of DRM in HTML5 (EME) doesn't specify how the acutal DRM has to be done. It just specifies how the browser gets the web page to communicate with the unspecified module.
  There'll be like 3 seperate DRM implementations: The Microsoft one (IE), the Google one (Chrome) and the Adobe one (Firefox), all closed source, proprietary, non-interoperable.
4. Re:DRM should not be in HTML5 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  Clue: the things the smart people worry about today, you'll understand and worry about in a few years time.
5. Re:DRM should not be in HTML5 by jellomizer · 2014-09-19 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well you could stop blindly following such a strict definition of free software.
  DRM is hear and it is going to stay.
  Why?
  Back in the analog days. We had tape for VHS. Sure you can copy it. But after 2 or 3 copies of copies the quality degrades. So to mass share VHS movies ends up being costly with poor quality over generations.
  Then we had CD's where at the time they held more data then you could really fit on your drive. So you had non-DRM data however because you couldn't store it on something other then other CD's which were costly in themselves. As well would take hours to download.
  Today with the internet and modern computers we can ship and store massive amounts of data there. In Economic terms digital data has nearly infinite supply thus making its cost to $0.00.
  However to make such data costs money, so safeguards to artificially limit supply to keep prices higher are implemented aka DRM.
  Now what would happen if there wasn't DRM.
  Netflix would still be shipping you DVD in the mail, you will have to buy all your music on CD's. They would probably even stop CD's and push Records or Tape. As to prevent digital copying.
  The fact that for $10.00 a month you get unlimited movies off of Netflix is actually a big gain. And we have to thank DRM for that. Otherwise big companies will not go digital as it will produce too many units and they would be giving it away at a cost.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
6. Re:DRM should not be in HTML5 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 11:01 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't the point of that website that DRM is bad regardless of whether it is in html5? Why bother excluding it from html5 if it is going to happen anyway? I keep seeing this desire brought up, but I fail to see how excluding DRM from html5 actually helps your general cause.
7. Re:DRM should not be in HTML5 by dactylus · 2014-09-19 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  Why do we have to operate under the assumption that all the customers are criminals? Lots of things get sold without DRM (most music nowadays), and it doesn't put the companies out of business because MOST PEOPLE AREN'T THIEVES. The pirates are a minority, and they will get their loot one way or another, whether Netflix uses DRM or not.
8. Re:DRM should not be in HTML5 by diamondmagic · 2014-09-19 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  HTML doesn't mention DRM. See for yourself: http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/PR-h...
  There's Encrypted Media Extensions, which everyone says is "ZOMG DRM", but it's an entirely separate document, and no more insidious than EncryptedXML.
  You can't "standardize" DRM, it's literally impossible.
  
  --
  Wonder what the public key field is for?
It's 2014 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 02:37 · Score: 0

How is this still an issue?
WTF is 14.02??? by aglider · 2014-09-19 02:38 · Score: 2

Ditto!

--
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
1. Re:WTF is 14.02??? by gQuigs · 2014-09-19 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure he meant 14.04.2..
2. Re: WTF is 14.02??? by aglider · 2014-09-19 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Nope! He wrote 14.02 'cause he meant 14.02. WTF!
  
  --
  Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
NSS? by pahles · 2014-09-19 02:46 · Score: 2

What does the National Speleological Society have to do with Netflix?

--
Sig?
1. Re:NSS? by herranzdiego · 2014-09-19 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  I guess it means Network Security Services
2. Re:NSS? by thelexx · 2014-09-19 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Have you seen their UI?
  
  --
  "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Easy ripping, if it were needed by GameboyRMH · 2014-09-19 02:56 · Score: 1

Now you could modify a compliant browser to strip out the HTML5 DRM crippleware and very easily rip videos from Netflix. But that's not necessary, I think everything hits TPB and Netflix at around the same time anyway.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1. Re:Easy ripping, if it were needed by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong. Netflix gets everything a very long time after it's out in the wild. There are no DRM strippers for silverlight either.
2. Re:Easy ripping, if it were needed by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, it's on TPB long before it's on Netflix, and it stays there long after it's gone from Netflix.
  Netflix is pretty damn meh for me, I can wait 5 minutes for a movie to download, and then I get to keep it forever, and it's free.
3. Re:Easy ripping, if it were needed by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  Now you could modify a compliant browser to strip out the HTML5 DRM crippleware and very easily rip videos from Netflix.
  While possible, that would still be enormous amount of work.
4. Re:Easy ripping, if it were needed by GameboyRMH · 2014-09-19 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe by Average Joe standards, but it wouldn't be a huge challenge for any coder to do...and then release Ripperfox to the world. It would be child's play compared to ripping a modern game for example.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
5. Re:Easy ripping, if it were needed by GameboyRMH · 2014-09-19 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  *I meant cracking a modern game...ripping the game is super easy!
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
6. Re:Easy ripping, if it were needed by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks for that input, I think I will try that. Not to share the shit afterwards (my upload bandwidth sucks), but ..well because I'm curious and bored.
Pipelight + SUSE by michaelmalak · 2014-09-19 02:57 · Score: 1

A video streaming provider other than Netflix also relies on Silverlight, and I was able to get it to work using Pipelight (couldn't get Moonlight to work), and only on SUSE (couldn't get CentOS or Ubuntu to work).
Great makes it easier to do nothing.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 03:03 · Score: 0

Instead of having to hit three buttons on my remote I'll only have to hit one.
I can feel the laziness optimisation coming upon me.....
Price is good, but not everything by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 03:13 · Score: 0

OP was not saying they charge too much for a good offering. He's saying they don't have any offerings he thinks are good. You may have tastes more in line with what they offer, so you see good value from the subscription. He doesn't see anything he likes, so any price would be too much for him when you factor in time spent watching something unenjoyable.
Single thread by tepples · 2014-09-19 03:29 · Score: 2

Firefox runs faster than Chrome
Firefox also lags when opening a bunch of tabs on sites like Cracked.com on an Atom CPU because it uses only one thread for JS and CSS across all open tabs.

and it uses less processes
Once the single thread problem gets fixed as part of the Electrolysis project, Firefox will probably use just as many processes.
1. Re:Single thread by tepples · 2014-09-19 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps get a laptop with a real processor. Atoms are way slower than the equivalent AMD offering.
  Equivalent means comparable physical size. Which 10" AMD laptop is any good?
"A" For Effort by MagickalMyst · 2014-09-19 03:51 · Score: 0

It's nice to see them making an effort to support Linux!

--
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
XBMC support soon? by MMC+Monster · 2014-09-19 03:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

Hopefully this will allow a good XBMC client. Would love to be able to watch netflix seemlessly within XBMC.

--
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
1. Re:XBMC support soon? by jones_supa · 2014-09-19 04:18 · Score: 2
  
  As a sidenote, today I came across an interesting XBMC plugin called xbmctorrent which allows you to directly watch movies behind magnet links. So I guess it's like the Popcorn Hour thingy.
2. Re:XBMC support soon? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  Seems like a waste of bandwidth. You're already violating copyright, you may as well download it and at least be able to do it more than once.
3. Re:XBMC support soon? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 10:57 · Score: 0
  
  Forget XBMC, I'm more interested in seeing a plugin for MythTV
4. Re:XBMC support soon? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 22:03 · Score: 0
  
  xbmctorrent is no longer under active development. The dev (steeve) is working on something called Pulsar now, same idea, just easier for other people to add torrent sources for. Testing opened for it this week, but only Windows/OSX builds at the moment.
  There's a plugin called Genesis (by lambda81) which does the same thing with DDL links. So it's a little less reliable, but it works better in areas where torrenting copyrighted material isn't permitted.
Be careful what you wish for. by westlake · 2014-09-19 03:54 · Score: 0

I'm not even sure why you'd want to use any web browser at all for this kind of thing.

The general purpose web browser is becoming an afterthought.
You can live very comfortably within the walled gardens of Amazon, iTunes, Netflix and the rest --- and while the geek won't want to hear this, this is where most people are spending their time now.
1. Re:Be careful what you wish for. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  We can only hope... eventually the walled gardens will be an effective quarantine and we can have our Internet again.
2. Re:Be careful what you wish for. by houstonbofh · 2014-09-22 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  It is slowly happening. Most of the idiots are leaving the technical forums and mailing lists. Leaving it to the technical and those who wrongfully think they are technical.
Single thread by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 04:05 · Score: 1

Perhaps get a laptop with a real processor. Atoms are way slower than the equivalent AMD offering.
Changes the issue, but still bad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 04:06 · Score: 0

While I'd normally be glad to hear Netflix was finally available I think it's still bad because they've simply switched digital restrictions systems. I'm disappointment as I actually care about my freedom and don't want to be beholden to them or have to trust them with access to my computer. I prefer to remain in control of it and not have to hand over access to a third party.
It's better to be a pirate than to enslave others.
The nun thinks she solved the problem too ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 04:36 · Score: 2, Funny

Whenever the family wants to watch Netflix, I explain the implications that closed software has on a society and the problem is solved.
Yeah, and when the nun explains to the catholic schoolgirl the personal and societal implications that extramarital sex has she thinks the problem is solved too. Once your kids go to college, prepare yourself for their overcompensation for their restrictive childhood. You can visit them while they camp out in front of an Apple Store waiting for the launch of the next incarnation of an iPhone or iPad.
Netflix already supports Linux by Tailhook · 2014-09-19 04:43 · Score: 0

Netflix has worked on Linux for a long time now. Any given Roku can play Netflix streams. Netflix streams play on Android as well. It's possible that most Netflix streaming is done using Linux, given that set tops and smart TVs are typically running Linux.

--
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
1. Re:Netflix already supports Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  anything that doesn't step on microsofts toesies.
2. Re:Netflix already supports Linux by ThatsMyNick · 2014-09-19 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Their HD streams (720p) are DRM only. You cant get them on android or roku.
3. Re:Netflix already supports Linux by El+Rey · 2014-09-19 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong!
  Netflix on Roku has been HD for ages.
4. Re:Netflix already supports Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  When forced through mono and other abstraction layers, yes, it "worked" for a long time. Performance was terrible.
5. Re:Netflix already supports Linux by ThatsMyNick · 2014-09-19 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong!
  Netflix on Roku has been HD for ages.
  I see Roku actually supports both SmoothStreaming (used by netflix) and PlayReady. Good luck trying to get it to work on a typical linux distro though. HD content is DRMed, Roku just supports the DRM.
The geek walls himself in. by westlake · 2014-09-19 05:27 · Score: 1

We can only hope... eventually the walled gardens will be an effective quarantine and we can have our Internet again.
Your Internet was defined by the dial-up modem and a multitude of clients that fromed the basis of an Internet suite and were barely one or two steps up in convenience and functionality from the BBS of 1980 and Telnet, circa 1969.
Happy to extract dollars from linux market ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 06:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Drat, now I can't complain about how all the big businesses hate linux desktop users.
Big business doesn't hate Linux desktop users. Linux user dollars are just as useful as Microsoft user dollars. Its just that there are so few Linux dollars available that its not worth big businesses time. If Linux offered a viable market they would be happy to extract dollars from it. Don't confuse a rational economic choice with hate just because you are bitter over a perceived slight.

Big business in fact loves Linux. It has relieved them of the need to implement their own Unix incarnations, or license expensive Unix incarnations from others. Big business basically funds Linux development these days, and directs it through such support. Long gone are the days that Linux was hobbyist developed and directed. Linus is far down the list of top kernel contributors these days, not even in the top 100.
Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 06:21 · Score: 0

I'll believe it when I see it! If they wanted this to work it would work already. Seriously, Chrome and FF already support HTML5, the only hold up is that netflix is a bunch of cunty cunts.
Doesn't much matter since there isn't anything worth watching on netflix anymore anyway. PIRATEBAY BITCH!
Coming to Linux or only to Ubuntu? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 08:37 · Score: 0

Netflix will play with Chrome stable in 14.02 if NSS version 3.16.2 or greater is installed. If this version is generally installed across 14.02, Netflix would be able to make a change so users would no longer have to hack their User-Agent to play.
Will it still work, if I'm not running Ubuntu, but have NSS version 3.16.2 or higher installed?
If this is "Ubuntu Only", you can go fuck yourself, Netflix. Linux!=Ubuntu
Already Works by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 08:45 · Score: 0

BleedingEdge installs Chrome Beta in Mint and creates a desktop link which runs:
google-chrome-beta --user-agent='Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/38.0.2114.2 Safari/537.36' http://www.netflix.com
See line 347
http://sourceforge.net/projects/bleedingedge/
took long enough by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-19 11:30 · Score: 0

Was this really so hard for Netflix to do in the first place? sheesh
Don't like Netflix? by Parker+Lewis · 2014-09-19 13:27 · Score: 1

Try Crackle, and then Netflix will appear awesome!