×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

242 comments

Third repost of this topic? (2, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 11 years ago | (#5711419)

Or is it really fourth?

Re:Third repost of this topic? (4, Informative)

blakestah (91866) | about 11 years ago | (#5711452)

No, the previous posts were Microsoft allowing the WMV9 encoders to be licensed for other operating systems. Previously, media tools from Microsoft could only be used on Windows (like Pinnacle Studio). With the WMV9 codec, licenses for tools can be purchased on any operating system, and much cheaper than MPEG4 licenses.

This new release is about their media PLAYER, for which licensing is a separate issue.

Re:Third repost of this topic? (1)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | about 11 years ago | (#5711533)

"Third repost of this topic?"

In light of the recent HD DVD's article, I'd say this isn't such a big deal. On the other hand, I don't exactly get my panties in a twist over dupe stories to begin with. So who am I to judge?

Re:Third repost of this topic? (4, Funny)

ryants (310088) | about 11 years ago | (#5711639)

(Scene: Charles Manson in his jail cell watching television)
If I haven't seen it, it's new to me!
Family Guy Episode FG-102.

Par for the course... (5, Informative)

Delta-9 (19355) | about 11 years ago | (#5711646)

Lately I have found that the majority of /. stories are delayed mirrors of Google News Sci/Tech section. I generally check Google News for the stories, then come here about 2 hours later to see the dialog about the story. I knew this story would be making its way here sooner or later.

Re:Par for the course... (4, Funny)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | about 11 years ago | (#5711674)

"Lately I have found that the majority of /. stories are delayed mirrors of Google News Sci/Tech section. I generally check Google News for the stories, then come here about 2 hours later to see the dialog about the story. I knew this story would be making its way here sooner or later."

Boy am I stunned that users are scouring reliable news sources to get their stories posted here.

Re:Third repost of this topic? (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 11 years ago | (#5711653)

And people thought the Evil Bit joke was funny just over a week ago.

No, it was not a joke, it was a sign of things to come...

bla bla bla (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711421)

första posten?

Ack! (4, Funny)

Xpilot (117961) | about 11 years ago | (#5711424)

The Microsoft and Linux icons on the same topic... what an unholy combination! I thought I'd never see the day.

Re:Ack! (5, Funny)

evilviper (135110) | about 11 years ago | (#5711679)

So, for what?... the past couple days or so?... since the beginning of the multiple topic icons... you thought you'de never see this day?

Umm, tell me, uhhh, what combination of lottery numbers do you think you'll never see win?

Re:Ack! (2, Funny)

JediTrainer (314273) | about 11 years ago | (#5711688)

The Microsoft and Linux icons on the same topic... what an unholy combination! I thought I'd never see the day.

Who's going to be the first to post a link to a Borgified Tux?

yeah, right... (1)

kormoc (122955) | about 11 years ago | (#5711425)

Like that will keep it off of home boxes. Anyway who needs WMP when you have Mplayer and Xine?

I would be a lot more intrested in having QT ported to linux.

Re:yeah, right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711466)

"I would be a lot more intrested in having QT ported to linux."

say what?

Re:yeah, right... (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 11 years ago | (#5711485)

Yes, mplayer has got to be one of the most successfull media players available for Linux. Although, in the typical Linux fasion, it is not easy to get setup correctly, once it is configured for use with Nautilus it is the best movie player around. I have found only a very slim few formats that don't work, and it is fast, too. Mplayer is one open source application with dependencies on closed source librarys that I do keep on my system and use regularly.

Re:yeah, right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711580)

Aside from the standard ./configure; make; make install, what makes MPlayer so friggin' hard to configure? You DON'T really have to tweak it. It's about as brainless as anything gets. I just don't understand this issue.

It plays tons of formats out of the box (even on PPC!). Download the extra libraries, and it plays damn near everything.

It's the (unix) wonder app of the millenium, imo.

Re:yeah, right... (1)

13Echo (209846) | about 11 years ago | (#5711601)

It isn't *that though* to install. You just need to understand the type of video card that you are using. The MPlayer documentation is very intimidating for most people, so that's what makes it difficult (their own ability to process the documentation). But frankly, XV video and OSS/SDL audio will work on the majority of systems out there... Just pop the codecs into /usr/lib/win32 and do a standard compile with the gui option if necessary.

But what Nautilus app are you using? Lumiere? I heard that there was a Nautilus app out there, but this is the only one that I have found, and the home page has been down.

Re:yeah, right... (1)

Anime_Fan (636798) | about 11 years ago | (#5711603)

I would be a lot more intrested in having QT ported to linux.

As if qt (KDE libs) were not already ported to Linux.... ='

It'd be nice to see qt ported and merged with Microsoft Windows CE code though, in order to see true speed/stability differences (except that MS would then maybe be allowed to use that code without regard to GPL licenses(?)... Didn't read that paragraph from that article...)

Re:yeah, right... (0)

kormoc (122955) | about 11 years ago | (#5711667)

Quicktime. I ment quicktime. I know it could go both ways, but I would have thought that people would get the correct one...

Re:yeah, right... (1)

camusflage (65105) | about 11 years ago | (#5711680)

You do, if you want to play any WMP protected content, such as the second session's WMF files on a copy-protected CD. Of course, if you really want to listen to Kenny G that badly, please, by all means, be my guest!

WM, why? (0)

master0ne (655374) | about 11 years ago | (#5711426)

windows media player? WHY??

Re:WM, why? (-1)

Horny Smurf (590916) | about 11 years ago | (#5711502)

for streaming audio, where lower quality is ok, I prefer windows media over real (shitty quality, shittier player) or mp3 (doesn't stream as well, sounds worse at low bitrates).


I wouldn't rip all my cds to wma (a friend of mine did and regretted it) -- aiff is a better answer -- but for music/audio sample downloads, I recommend it to several fortune 500 clients I've consulted for.

Re:WM, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711532)

dude wtf is wrong with you streaming OGG is the way to go

Re:WM, why? (0)

master0ne (655374) | about 11 years ago | (#5711556)

ogg files, no wma files, and mplayer or xine work as good as or better than almost any M$ media player..., and asto riping everything into wma, it does suck, thats why i dislike wmp, get xmms, and xine or sompthing, dont port WMP to linux, thats pointless....

Dupe (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711429)

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/225206

XBox? (1)

Blaine Hilton (626259) | about 11 years ago | (#5711430)

This seems to be more for their XBox line of products and not for the john doe linux user IMHO.

Re:XBox? (2, Insightful)

SoftCoreHonesty (665319) | about 11 years ago | (#5711543)

XBox line of products

Somehow I don't see Microsoft releasing a version of their XBox with Linux on it. If you read the article it is for set top boxes.

Re:XBox? (1)

ehudokai (585897) | about 11 years ago | (#5711546)

What are you talking about?, XBox doesn't even run linux without a mod chip.. well I guess someone has hacked up another way to steal the code from some bond game, but that's not the point. This has NOTHING to do with the XBOX!!!

Re:XBox? (1)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | about 11 years ago | (#5711555)

"This seems to be more for their XBox line of products and not for the john doe linux user IMHO."

They're releasing WMP9 for the people who hack their XBOXs to run Linux?

Re:XBox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711617)

>>This seems to be more for their XBox line of products and not for the john doe linux user IMHO

"Microsoft will only allow it to be distributed via set top boxes and the like."

Gee, I wonder what led you to that conclusion...

Even though XBox runs Windows CE.

How are they going to pull this one off? (-1, Troll)

japhar81 (640163) | about 11 years ago | (#5711431)

Without having to release source? I mean, sure, if they do a cleanroom implementation, but who thinks they will? Seems much more likely they'll start of with mplayer or something for a shell and code against that...

That aside, nice to see the jolly greed giant finally acknowledge linux and code for it.

Re:How are they going to pull this one off? (3, Insightful)

malfunct (120790) | about 11 years ago | (#5711503)

Why would they have to release source for a linux application that they write? Sure if they derive from another GPL application they would have to release, but I am pretty sure they would to a port that didn't derive from anything and could stay closed.

Having it closed sort of sucks because other competing players can't use the codecs. I think MS is just trying to make WMP9 video formats the defacto industry standard.

Re:How are they going to pull this one off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711526)

No the Windows Media 9 codecs are licensable piecemeal - you can just license the codec just like you license DVD or MPEG4.

This is allowing InterVideo to make WMP9 players/encoders/DRM/whatever piecemeal part you purchase into software you can put on embedded devices.

InterVideo also makes DVD players for embedded linux - if you're making a set top box you'd use this stuff.

Fuck lunix (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711434)

Its bloated, slow, hard to configure, and the equivalent of windows 95 technology. When you lunix "hackers" improve the usability and make it so I dont need to vi my config files to get my media player to work maybe I will use it.

Break (1)

voot (609611) | about 11 years ago | (#5711435)

Don't most people go with linux to get away from m$?

Re:Break (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711559)

zealots do, others who go to linux more rationally go to linux because it is the best tool for the job.

Re:Break (2, Interesting)

SoftCoreHonesty (665319) | about 11 years ago | (#5711577)

You may or may not be right but I know that I still use Windows on my desktop (for the most part) but I went to Linux on my server for affordability, stability, and flexibility. I don't typically make decisions based on dislike for a company. I go for whatever product best serves my purpose. I also don't hate Microsoft anymore than I hate Walmart, Disney, AOLTW, Oracle, Sun, Apple, Vivendi, and all of the other companies that are evil as Microsoft but just not as good at it.

Re:Break (4, Insightful)

Transient0 (175617) | about 11 years ago | (#5711669)

Unless they go with Linux to save a little money. Especially if they are a manufacturer.

If you are producing a set-top embedded system and need to put an OS on it, it's WAY cheaper to use Linux than Embedded Windows. The only real cost associated with Linux is tech support, which can be a HUGE cost, but won't be in a system like this because access to the OS will be extremely limited so users won't have an opportunity to fuck it up.

If you make this product using Linux, you are probably doing so to save on costs, thus maximizing profit for you and your shareholders. Chances are ideological issues about free software and open source play little or no role in that decision. As such, you would be more than happy to use a port of MS-WMP and related codecs if that is a convenient and efficient way to handle the media.

what about duplicate stories (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711437)

for unemployed slashdot janitors?

How long ... (4, Interesting)

B3ryllium (571199) | about 11 years ago | (#5711438)

... until it gets ripped off a box and distributed for general use?

Depends on architecture (3, Insightful)

numbski (515011) | about 11 years ago | (#5711596)

If they use i386, I can count it in minutes. :)

If they use something else, could be a LOOOOOONG time.

fp!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711439)

fp!!! I RULE YOU

Restricted availability? (5, Funny)

Mainframer (530235) | about 11 years ago | (#5711442)

According to the usual routine, it should be freely available about 2 days before its official launch...

Indeed. (4, Insightful)

numbski (515011) | about 11 years ago | (#5711445)

"If you register the player online, which involves answering some very personal questions and effectively allowing Microsoft a good look at your PC, then you get the full version. Otherwise you're left with a cut down version.

"If they applied this tactic to Linux users, imagine the information they could get their hands on."

Indeed.

Even if they ported it, would you use it with those stipulations?

One word. MPlayer [mplayerhq.hu].

Only a pompous ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711553)

Would title his message "Indeed."

Re:Indeed. (1)

Slime-dogg (120473) | about 11 years ago | (#5711619)

Hah. The data they would get would/could be limited by the user permissions of whoever's using the box.

Also, I'd expect MS to get a lot of people named "Jazz Jackrabbit" downloading their media player.

DUPE (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711449)

DUPE. D'oh!

Movie Theaters (4, Funny)

cdrudge (68377) | about 11 years ago | (#5711454)

so now will the movie theaters run linux?

Hey...it was highly rated in a previous story [slashdot.org]. If the Slashdot gang can repeat stories...why can't I repeat comments.

Re:Movie Theaters (4, Funny)

T3kno (51315) | about 11 years ago | (#5711641)

I wonder what killall -9 wmp9 would look like on a 30 foot screen.

Prediction time... (1)

rosewood (99925) | about 11 years ago | (#5711455)

How long until someone gets this for everyone else in linux? I suggest a contest -- the winner gets more porn!

Question (1)

C_Kode (102755) | about 11 years ago | (#5711456)

I don't all the legal issues with GNU, but if they use any part of the GNU libraries etc, wouldn't they have to open source the media player? Including how to read the file format?

Re:Question (4, Informative)

Tim C (15259) | about 11 years ago | (#5711491)

Not if the libraries in question are licenced under the LGPL. The LGPL specifically allows linking with non-GPLed code; that's the reason it exists distinct from the GPL.

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711497)

LGPL, MUVVERFUCKAAAA!!!!!!

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711578)

Such a neat, polite and informative post! Wonderfully crafted! It really explained it all, especially the included link to the licence in question. It's replies like this that makes reading slashdot a joy!

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711519)

Short Answer, No
Long Answer, No

They are not going to be including any of The GNU released code into there code, so they dont have to open it.

duplicate post? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711460)

oh forget about it.

DUPE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711467)

asdfasdfasdfasdf

fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck

Understandable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711469)

Seems MS is abandoning hope of ruling to embedded space as is evident by them openning the source to WinCE.

dupe! (-1, Troll)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 11 years ago | (#5711473)

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/225206 &mode=thread&tid=188

Re:dupe! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711606)

kind of ironic that *you* got the redundant moderation, instead of the slashpot crew.

Micrsooft and Blue Lasers (1)

Vodak (119225) | about 11 years ago | (#5711475)

Why would Microsoft do something like this if they are so dead set against other operating systems? Why, they wish to become the new video disc media format duh. I mean a new standard is going to come out of the blue laser crap anyway Microsoft might as well try to become the coedec of it. =].

Re:Micrsooft and Blue Lasers (2, Insightful)

djdole (588163) | about 11 years ago | (#5711671)

Becuase Micro(?)Soft knows that as long as there are people running linux out there, there will be a market share they don't have their grimey fingers in. This way they can get a chunk of change off the sale of the boxes. Or at least get the advertisement from their mediaplayer being on the boxes. I mean even if the person looks at the icon, that's one more place where microsoft has it's name/trademark. Remember when you NEVER thought you'd see Microsoft Software on a Mac? The plague is spreading.

How long before someone copies it? (1)

rf0 (159958) | about 11 years ago | (#5711479)

Even if M$ do go through with this how long before someone will hack the STB and post it on the web somewhere? Then again we could just all use mplayer :)

Rus

Re:How long before someone copies it? (2, Insightful)

Vodak (119225) | about 11 years ago | (#5711631)

Didn't you read the recent court ruling? Federal Judges have said Reverse engineering is now illegal under the DMCA. so if someone makes "a hack" they can be throwin in the can.

Re:How long before someone copies it? (1)

rf0 (159958) | about 11 years ago | (#5711647)

However Reverse Engineering is legal where I live so...

Rus

Pathetic (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711481)

You assholes get a salary but don't read your own stupid site enough to notice a repeat? I read your site once a day for about 10 mins and I knew about this.

Pathetic. You should all die of gonorrhea and rot in hell. Would you like a cookie?

Re:Pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711632)

Sorry, it seems gonorrhea requires sexual contact. RSI is likely, though.

WMP will not be ported.. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711482)

The deal includes Windows Media codecs, file formats, streaming protocol and DRM -- everything that is needed to access Windows Media. However, the Windows Media Player itself will not be ported.

AC

You people are pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711488)

I love seeing slashdot's unnerving obsession with all things Microsoft.

You would think a site seemingly devoted to open source and Linux would concentrate more of their attention to that, but no.

It's all microsoft, all the time!!

And with all the hatred and venom spewing normally reserved for rapists and murderers.

This childishness and immaturity is what's hindering Linux for now and the near future.

Normal (4, Funny)

rirugrat (255768) | about 11 years ago | (#5711496)

However, WMP will not be available to normal folks...Microsoft will only allow it to be distributed via set top boxes and the like.

Microsoft is right. Most Linux folks are not normal.

Chris

Double-Plus Good! (1)

turgid (580780) | about 11 years ago | (#5711498)

Microsoft continues to extend its world lead and is being nice to Linux :-)

Re:Double-Plus Good! (1)

monthos (591823) | about 11 years ago | (#5711549)

Hardly, there getting money from a private company to put in PVR's and such, the linux community will not gain anything

dupe or NOT? (3, Insightful)

ehudokai (585897) | about 11 years ago | (#5711509)

This may not be a dupe as it clarifies that Microsoft is not going to allow the port of WMP to be used in regular linux boxes, so all of the discussions about GPL licensing are mute!

Way to go Microsoft! You never let us down in our expectations of your imperialist powers

Yar! (4, Funny)

rabtech (223758) | about 11 years ago | (#5711513)

Yarrrrr matey! We be the pirates o' the seven operatin' systems!

*wink-wink* *nudge-nudge*

Re:Yar! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711649)

yeah, butt pirates.

Sad truth for microsoft. (1)

makoffee (145275) | about 11 years ago | (#5711516)

I guess it looks like MS-windows will never be able to take a foothold in embeded deviceses the way linux has.

Microsoft is making software to run on linux, Am I still sleeping?

Can you say DeWMP? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711525)

Sure, I knew you could.

Legal WMP on Illegal Modded Xbox (5, Funny)

ZombieFrog (119809) | about 11 years ago | (#5711529)

Sounds like a prime candidate for a legal paradox that could destroy time itself!

Will Mictosoft have to distribute source? (1, Interesting)

John_Sauter (595980) | about 11 years ago | (#5711531)

If Microsoft distributes a set-top box that includes the Linux kernel, then the product as a whole is derived from the Linux kernel. To get permission to distribute the Linux kernel, they must agree to the GNU General Public License, which requires them to distribute the source of all the software they add to the Linux kernel in order to make their product. This doesn't sound like something Microsoft would be willing to do. Am I missing something?
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)

Re:Will Mictosoft have to distribute source? (1)

monthos (591823) | about 11 years ago | (#5711570)

Its not part of the kernel, its applications and video codec lib's. so no they dont need to release any source.

Re:Will Microsoft have to distribute source? (2, Informative)

John_Sauter (595980) | about 11 years ago | (#5711663)

Even assuming they don't change the kernel, if they are distributing it within the box they need to agree to the GPL, which requires that they distribute the source of the kernel, at least. I argue that even though they add only applications and libraries, since they are distributing a complete, integrated package that includes the Linux kernel, the package as a whole is derived from the Linux kernel and thus must include source. It would be different if they were distributing only their applications and libraries, with the end-user responsible for acquiring and installing the Linux kernel.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)

Re:Will Microsoft have to distribute source? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711700)


It Doesn't Work That Way<super>TM</super>

The only thing that gets two programs considered as the same work is being linked (statically or dynamically). That is, unless they are distributing WMP as a loadable kernel module, they don't have to ever worry about source. And even then, there's an exception in the Linux kernel license to allow loadable binary modules (even if there wasn't, they could use the Nvidia style of redirection -- load an open module that loads a closed module).

The GPL covers specific works. It does not cover a bunch of works as a whole.

Re:Will Mictosoft have to distribute source? (0)

master0ne (655374) | about 11 years ago | (#5711582)

maby they wont modify the kernel... just a guess, but couldnt wmp be provided sepratly from the kernel on the embedded system? i dont know much about embedded systems, and i hate windows media player, but thats just my $0.02

Re:Will Mictosoft have to distribute source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711594)

Am I missing something?

Intelligence, maybe?

Re:Will Mictosoft have to distribute source?NO (5, Informative)

ehudokai (585897) | about 11 years ago | (#5711600)

Yes you are missing a great deal. The GPL only restricts the code that is covered by the GPL. So if Microsoft chose to take the linux kernel and rerelease it, then they would have to release the source, otherwise they don't have to release anything under the GPL simply because they are using Linux as their kernel. Take, for example, Oracle, win4lin, Opera, and a host of other BSD licensed material that runs on linux.

Is anyone really surprised? (1)

D'Arque Bishop (84624) | about 11 years ago | (#5711536)

No, not about the fact that this is a dupe. That's par for the course nowadays...

I mean, is anyone surprised that Intervideo's only doing this for set-top boxes and the like? I mean, hell... their LinDVD software is STILL only available for embedded and OEM systems. Regular users can't buy it. Why should we expect anything less for Windows Media?

Also keep in mind that the CEO of Intervideo said a few years back that those of us using software like DeCSS to watch DVD's on our Linux boxes were pirates or some such. Then, when he could turn around and SELL a "legitimate" platform for us, he chose to keep it away from the Linux using public at large. *grumble* I don't see why we should support them if they're going to treat us like red-headed stepchildren.

(Sorry, I don't have a link to the article where the CEO said that... couldn't find it via Google. I'm sure I can't be the only one who's seen it...)

Ok, Karma burning time... (2, Insightful)

Geekonomical (461622) | about 11 years ago | (#5711537)

Who is ordinary folk? You mean the person who bought set top box is extraordinary?

I repeat : It is not a crime to earn money with software, YET.

Carrot! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5711589)

I love my fluffy bunny, *Hop* *hop* *Hop*!

TiVo (5, Interesting)

jargoone (166102) | about 11 years ago | (#5711664)

This is potentially big news for TiVo. With the recent release of Home Media Option, there have been some complaints about the software not supporting WMA. My music is in mp3 format, so I don't really care, but if it can help increase interest and development in Home Media Option, I'm all for it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...