OSNews

An arm port of Windows wont be of much use without apps to run on it.

An arm port of Windows wont be of much use without apps to run on it.

Well, Microsoft could always integrate x86 emulation into Windows so that you could run x86 applications on ARM Windows.. You'd sacrifice helluva lot of performance then though, so it wouldn't work for any intensive applications. It would probably work for any simpler apps like f.ex. office work.

ARM processors running at 1GHz in battery-powered mobile devices just don't have enough processing grunt to make such a thing practical.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it useable at al? No. Sorry.

If you want an application to work on an ARM device of this capability ... take the original source code and re-compile it for ARM. That is the ONLY practical way to run things on on an ARM device.

If you have an x86 binary-only copy of an application, you can forget about trying to run it satisfactorily on an ARM netbook.

Or the case of someone putting up a website which has no association with ASUS - I've seen many websites in the past trying to pass themselves off as Microsoft websites when in reality they're nothing more than pathetic resellers trying to boost their sales through dodgy marketing tactics. Given that the website is registered to a 'Michael Sharp' to which the phone number provided on the whois cannot be verified and the address given doesn't give a specific organisation given that the address has something like 14 business operating from it - I doubt it has any link back to ASUS.

As for ARM processors; they need to get Flash working, without flash and some decent CODEC support for music and video, its going to be 'epic fail'. The problem that I see is that if ASUS does ship this, they'll try to do it on the cheap and thus have missing key components to make the internet experience alot more pleasant.

As for ARM processors; they need to get Flash working, without flash and some decent CODEC support for music and video, its going to be 'epic fail'. The problem that I see is that if ASUS does ship this, they'll try to do it on the cheap and thus have missing key components to make the internet experience alot more pleasant.

Adobe Flash does exist for ARM processors already AFAIK, and they could always use Gnash as a backup. And FFMPEG supports almost every codec out there and what it doesn't support can be found in other packages. I don't have that Win32codecs package installed on my Linux at all yet everything I've thrown at my Linux has worked just peachy.

But yeah, given ASUS's bad track record at actually doing any decent job at anything their product will most likely not be anything spectacular.

Even if they shipped FFMPEG, they would still have to pay royalties for using patented CODECS, and the win32codecs package is of questionable legality; so I don't see either solution being used let alone Asus trying to get Gnash working considering that Gnash is still far from being in a stable and useful state (non-feature complete).

As for the ARM version, they Arm version is a cut down version of Flash so it isn't equal to the full desktop version of it. What Arm needs is the fully fledged Flash that is available on the desktop and not some cut down mobile phone version which is missing key features which some developers are sure to use.

Asus when it comes to making hardware is ok - I have a Eee PC and as happy as larry, and when it comes to installing turn key solutions that require them to make no effort in terms of customisation they seem to do an ok job at it; btw, I am doing a report on the Eeepc which I bought, lots of praise for it btw when it comes to using it as a netbook. I just hope that maybe in a couple of years some of the rough edges of Linux will be smoothed - but lets be honest though, the focus on the desktop by a single vendor with some dollars.

ffmpeg is free software (and freedom software). It is more capable than w32codecs, and it is not just a bunch of x86 binary-only codecs designed for Windows. Unlike w32codecs, ffmpeg is not a copy of anyone else's code. ffmpeg violates no copyrights.

As for patents ... extremely dubious. There is no "physical machine" involved in the function of a codec, it is pure mathematics. As such, in almost every country on the planet, a codec is not patentable. Even in the US, in view of the in re Bilski decision, a codec is probably not patentable.

So in using w32codecs you could fall foul of copyright law, if it can be shown that you are distributiong a copy of someone else's code. they are x86 only anyway, so of no use to ARM.

ffmpeg/libavcodec OTOH is not a copy of proprietary code. There should be no problem distributing it.

Adobe and open source:

http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/site/Home
http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/site/Projects
http://stlab.adobe.com/

Edited 2009-06-02 00:11 UTC

More on patentability questions in the US:

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/06/bilski.html

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/01/2158224

Edited 2009-06-02 00:30 UTC

So what, software patents exist as they are right now - until software patents are over turned - companies have to operate in this place called reality; where the sky is blue, grass is green, the US has a 2 trillion budget deficit and there are software patents.

Edited 2009-06-02 04:51 UTC

But something tells me that there are some companies that are already not taking US into account. That something is reality and history, and it comes from Samsung and a bunch of Japanese and Chinese companies NOT pleanning to release some of their products outside their respective countries. So get you head out of that US centric ass and think a bit.

Software patents as a concept are ridiculous, but that doesn't justify pretending they don't exist. Bliski is going up for review with SCOTUS, which is hopefully a good thing in terms of reinforcing the level of ridiculousness, but for now the reality is that patents are a minefield for any commercial company distributing products in a jurisdiction where they are held valid. Just ask SanDisk, who had their MP3 players seized under an injunction by a German court, for not paying licensing fees. Philosophical arguments on the part of free software are legitimate, but they don't negate reality.



Considering the w32codecs are lifted from Windows and therefore MS code, you're correct, they will generally fall foul of copyright law in any jurisdiction.



Clean room coding doesn't magically protect one from patent infringement. OSS implementations of patented codecs are still patent infringements. Note, as I said above, I think software patents are BS, but they are a legitimate obstacle for any commercial organization hoping to leverage OSS in a business model. At the end of the day, multi-billion dollar organizations like Asus can't simply dismiss the risk of patent infringement because the community decides they're invalid. Microsoft just got hit with a $200M judgement because of some freaking company that claims a patent on interpreting XML in documents. It's pathetic, but any commercial organization has to take that risk/liability into concern.


The mainstream vendors simply can't ship a netbook with ffmpeg as a solution for codec compatibility, the exposure/liability is to high. I only bring this up because I find that, too often, the free software community is too willing to point to solutions like this and say "problem solved". It's not solved. It won't happen. The community is free to download "illegal" codecs at will, but manufacturers can't include them, and that simply adds an extra roadblock.

Asus et al. will have to shell out for licenses, much as fluendo does, if they want to legitimize the popular proprietary codecs on a free platform.

The market has become too addicted to YouTube et al., with videos on demand. As long as the content providers and purveyors support proprietary codecs, it will hinder widespread FLOSS adoption.

It would be better for the community to only accept standards like OGG. Sure, it sucks compared to the alternatives, but sacrifice is required if the community truly wants open standards. Dirac may help, if they can get it straight as well. And if users aren't willing to sacrifice in order to accept free codecs, then the proprietary ones have pretty much justified their existence.

But in the mean time, it helps nothing to pretend that the patents are meaningless just because they are vacuous in some jurisdictions and not others. The vendors will not adopt the OSS work-arounds. This is an issue that needs to be addressed as aggressively as the ODF issue was, at gov't levels.

They exist in the US, insofar as the USPTO has issued them. AFAIK, none of them have survived an actual court challenge. The general idea of codecs has reams of prior art. Specific codecs differ from others only in respect of the mathematics they use, and even in the US, despite USPTO's behaviour, you cannot patent mathematics.



The reality being that one cannot without risk simply distribute codecs (even if you have rights to the source code) with a product you wish to sell in the US.

Sadly, agreed. I feel somewhat for US residents in this respect.

Considering the w32codecs are lifted from Windows and therefore MS code, you're correct, they will generally fall foul of copyright law in any jurisdiction. "

Agreed. there is no proper role for w3codecs on a Linux system IMO.

Clean room coding doesn't magically protect one from patent infringement. "

It does in all countries in which the codecs are not patented. That is most of them.



Not in most countries.



Agreed. This means only that the codecs package cannot be shipped fully. Only some codecs can be shipped in the default installation. However, most distributions will tell you what packages are missing when you try to play a file which requires a codec.

For example, Amarok will tell you that you need to install the libxine-ffmpeg package if you try to play an .mp3 file. If you then try to install package libxine-ffmpeg, the package manager will tell you that you need to enable the restricted-extras repository (or something like that). Enable the repository, and then libxine-ffmpeg is installable. With libxine-ffmpeg installed, Amarok can then play .mp3 files.

Its not rocket science.

Yet the Kubuntu distribution was not shipped with a .mp3 codec.



They are not illegal at all in most countries. It is not at all difficult to install them post delivery.



If I were Asus, I would NOT distribute them (because of the risk). But I would have the software state that the required codec is not installed, and name the package that included the required codec (that is legal in most countries).

Meanwhile, for the US only, there are legal codecs available for purchase. Google for "fluendo".



That is a bad example. Adobe have opened up the .flv specification, and given permission for anyone to write software to play such files. Gnash and swfdec, either one of which will allow you to play youtube videos, are perfectly legal codecs everywhere. The .flv codec which is part of ffmpeg (which allows for example VLC to play downloaded flash videos) is likewise perfectly legal.



... and .swf and .flv. Theora, Vorbis, Dirac, FLAC ... there are actually quite a number available. You don't even need OGG, you can use Matroska instead.



Vorbis is better than .mp3. Theora is catching up, and recently almost gained parity with H264.



Why? All it means to most of the people on the planet is that they have to follow a few extra steps to get multimedia to play. This is no different to Windows.



Yes. It shouldn't be an issue, and the US seriously needs to fix this problem. But in most places, it isn't really a problem, but more like an annoyance.

Edited 2009-06-02 06:38 UTC

Who the hell said it was a copy of anything or used win32 binaries or any of the other crap you mentioned in that paragraph? you really are getting to the end of my tether right now - you have addresses NOTHING and started a rant about issues I NEVER raised.



Who gives a shit about that - as it stands right now there are software patents, love or loath it. You may live in lalala land where courts are a voluntary thing to abide by but everywhere else in the world there are patents and if you ship patented technology with your product - you're going to get sued; end of story.



Which doesn't change the fact that there are patents and they violate those patents. Until software patents suddenly evaporate (which I wish they did), we have to play in this world called reality.



So what - I don't see the full source code for Flash Plugin - so no soup for you!

I didn't rant, I just stated some relevant facts that you omitted.

The facts are relevant because, for most of the people on the planet, the codecs are not patented, and consequently the only legal protection that proprietary binary codecs have is copyright. ffmpeg does not violate copyright, so for the majority of people, their use is not illegal at all.

Ergo, multimedia codecs are not a problem on Linux for most people.

For the small percentage of people living under repressive regimes where there is a problem, there is still a legal alternative in the Fluendo codecs where one can pay the burdonsome tax that codecs attract in those countries.

Do you know the difference between patents and copyright? if not - may I suggest you shut up until such time that you know the difference.

Flash 9 runs on the N800 - ARM LINUX based.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swfdec

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTASC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_for_Linux

All available as source code.

Even certain parts of Adobe's own Flash code are available as open source code for free.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/01/adobe_flash_builder_catalys...

Flash is not anyhwere near the problem that you seem to think it may be.

As for codecs ... open source has a zillion of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libavcodec

This is the codec library used by the best media player available, also open source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLC_media_player

Also not a problem. Out-of-the-box codec support on open source systems is better than that on proprietary systems.

Edited 2009-06-01 23:37 UTC

To which you ignore the issues raised by the first reply to my post - but hey, you keep replying because you like the sound of your voice - or more correctly, the appearance of your own sentences.



Which is useless because the plugin is still closed source.



As I said in response to the first paragraph, you ignore the reply to the first reply in favour of wanting to see your own text. I addressed a number of the raised - and yet you ignore that post in favour of wanting to post something already addressed.

No cookie for you, try again.

Edited 2009-06-02 04:43 UTC

because android have gameloft games..