If you’re tired of all the reading, reading, reading, here’s a chance to kick back and watch some TV. University of Washington TV recently ran a show produced by its computer science department called “Open Source: New Religion or Viable Business Model?” Their web site carries streams in various formats.
It really pisses me off when they do this…
mplayer doesn’t even want to play them (with w32 codecs)
There’s a bit of irony here. A video about open source that can’t easily be read on that platform. Viable indeed?
Aren’t new religions viable business models? Scientology isn’t that poor, are they?
the reason you cant view it on open source is to help prove their point.OSS doesnt provide for the user.
If they made it available to the OSS crowd to easily view it, it would probably be ripped to shreds.
I see a bunch of UW faculty and a MS rep. Who is speaking for OSS in this “pat your own back” session?
Why no MIT people? This is like asking your neighbor for a reference.
“mplayer doesn’t even want to play them (with w32 codecs)”
It works for me with mplayer-plugin in firefox running Arch.
FWIW, as xerxes2 says, it works with mplayer (but they use an .asx playlist, so make sure to use the -playlist flag, or point mplayer to the actual address of the stream: mms://media-wm.cac.washington.edu/ifs/uw_ebus_openso_250k.asf )
Ironically, the only one I can get to work under FreeBSD with Firefox and MPlayer-plugin is the WMP one. The QuickTime one just seems to hang. I didn’t even try the EXE, this is FreeBSD after all. :p
I’d like to add that I have gotten both VLC and mplayer to play it; VLC stutters a lot on both sound and video, while mplayer plays it just fine.
Open source is not a religion for most of the people that writes open source software. It’s neither a business model. However there are persons interested in making us believe both. They’re selling something.
The problem is that to statistically prove anything, not enough time has elapsed. Not just for Open Source as a business model but also for proprietary software. You have to remember that before you condemn one ore the other.
Apologies — pressed enter half way through the argument.
The microsoft guy was excellent. He explicitly did away with fireworks style arguments, and all but made a fool of the guy who attempted to push him down that path. The argument about complexity was frankly quite excellent — that with open source you get all this freedom but it is quite difficult to get someone to support that freedom.
I think the conclusion we can draw is that open source is a skills thing. Open source can only succeed out there in the businesses when sufficiently many people in the labour force have the skills for it, so that companies can more easily play in that risk space between freedom and supportability.
Btw — I played it using the Windows format on Kaffeine.
The whole question sets you up for a bogus answer either way. It is neither…it is ultimately just a system to produce/test/communicate/improve/customize/share/etc….that’s all….and what people do with the results is their business.
“I think the conclusion we can draw is that open source is a skills thing. Open source can only succeed out there in the businesses when sufficiently many people in the labour force have the skills for it, so that companies can more easily play in that risk space between freedom and supportability. ”
Yes, the conclusion was that Microsoft sells software for stupid people who pay for your ignorance of implement solutions using freely available software on the internet.
Ops, don’t commercial linux distributions do the same ? You pay for Red Hat Advanced Linux because you don’t know how to do the same with Debian and/or you need telephone support.
For business, this should not be seen as an binary thing, proprietary software vs open source.
Smart companies use a mix of both according to the needs of each project; you can for example use VS.Net and SQL Server but on top of it go for DotNetNuke, or mix MySql with Java.
The “who’s gonna make the boring work” is an interesting problem too..that’s why we don’t have webcam support in linux-based IM clients yet, as incredible as it sounds.
Re: Marcelo
Yes, the conclusion was that Microsoft sells software for stupid people who pay for your ignorance of implement solutions using freely available software on the internet.
Yeah, that’s a way to win people over – if they don’t know how to inplement software that is a pain in the ass to set up and use, call them stupid. Anyway, don’t we all pay for our ignorance in one way or the other? For example, if the transmission goes out on your car, do you fix it yourself or do you pay somebody else to do it?
Ops, don’t commercial linux distributions do the same ? You pay for Red Hat Advanced Linux because you don’t know how to do the same with Debian and/or you need telephone support.
That was covered in the presentation – you should watch it.
PS: Kaffeine played the video here straight away
1. It appears that although the two speakers have some differences, they seem to both agree that there are some instances where both commercial and open source software makes sense (eg – the right tool for the job). It would’ve been more interesting to have somebody like Richard Stallman argueing the virtues of free software. If you’re going to argue whether open source (or free software, or whatever) is a relgion or not, you might as well have somebody up there who treats it like a religion.
2. If the Real guy is so gung-ho about open source, why haven’t they open sourced the Windows version of RealPlayer? Then at least somebody could rip out that adware and other shit from the Windows version and release something that’s actually usable.
3. Just like the Real guy did, I’ve heard people argue in favor of open source, and they liken it to ‘information sharing.’ When I think of information sharing, I think of things like books. Wouldn’t it be great of all books were free (as in speech) so you could freely modify and redistribute them?
“PS: Kaffeine played the video here straight away”
Same here…
It really pisses me off when they do this…
mplayer doesn’t even want to play them (with w32 codecs)
I agree with you, I’ve been pissed off at this for a looooong time, people need to realize the world is not all Win32/Mac
/me shakes his head in disgust and walks away……
http://agnani.blogspot.com/2005/06/open-source-new-religion-or-viab…
Religion or business model — is that the only choice they offer in the US? How about “Empowering Industry / Government / Community – Supported Infrastructure”?
Have this idiots (and it’s a good word to use) heard of the open video and audio stuff? Hello, ogg, xvid, etc? Geez, at least do Real so that we can have an authentic support for the proprietary formats.
Stallman was right, you call it Open Source and the Freedom gets lost in fine print.
Proprietary formats keep everyone out; it has nothing to do with Open Source; it has to do with format hogging and idiots support proprietary formats. Proprietary formats were all well and good, until about 1994 when the Internet boom started; and then proprietary formats became a way to hurt your users by making sure their files could only be viewed by your customers. Don’t believe me? Ask Berners-Lee; he’ll tell ya all about proprietary standards….
Can you run Real streams in WMP? I actually don’t know, but I’m guessing you can’t. Can you play quicktime streams in Real or WMP?
Oh noes! They’re not serving their users! What a crock.
Keep in mind that this is from the University of WASHINGTON – Microsoft has a lot of influence there. Notice that some speakers are from Microsoft.
I think the stream itself has an issue for the quicktime, since it’s dieing for me, and I think apples quicktime implementation should be better then others.
I do think it not working under linux and other OS OS’s out there does tell something. It just clarifies important companies not developing on these platforms, and OS people not finding good ways to make these work.
“I agree with you, I’ve been pissed off at this for a looooong time, people need to realize the world is not all Win32/Mac ”
Back when I ran BeOS I might have agreed with you, but then I woke up and realized wanting such things is not in the interest of the rest of the world. Windows and Mac are the world. Running an OS other then windows and Mac OS is a choice, and you cannot expect the world to bend over backwards for your decision. If you don’t like this, you will have to find a way for the world to truly embrace a 3rd OS, and so far no one has had any luck there.
Actually, car owners have paid for that time and again. Ask someone who owns a Jaguar what it’s like finding a mechanic. Remember Torques? Great idea, actually I love torques wrenches; but the jist I get from the mechanically inclined tells me it was an attempt by Chevy to keep people out of the hoods of their cars.
And now, you almost have to take your car to the dealer to fix anything beyond the brakes… And fixing your car is only getting more expensive (although I think it’s getting less common too, for most brands).
I don’t think he was calling them stupid for not being able to setup apache. He’s calling them stupid for thinking that buying IIS would be no different from buying Apache. He’s implying that by not realizing the value of un-owned software (nasty word for OSS) they’re being ignorant. And it’s true; it’s a real cost factor. Usually, Microsoft has the advantage of being different from almost every software company: They aren’t gonna dissappear any time soon. But at the same time, they’ve dumped projects too; but they certainly have a great record for supporting their products (compared to releasing and then declaring bankruptcy).
But maybe he just thinks he’s more intelligent. In which case, I hope his car breaks down soon
.
How is Microsoft and Apple better for the world now?
Or am I again speaking to an omniscient person?
Throughout this discussion both the Real and Microsoft reps used the term “commercial” rather than “proprietary.” As if to say that open source software companies couldn’t be commercial. That doesn’t sound right to me.
I believe that the selection of speakers for this show was very poor. Jeff Ayars (RealNetworks) did very little to convince people that open source software could be viable for business, and despite David Wilson’s (Microsoft) calm demeanor, I felt he did a poor job of concealing his agenda. This is all a matter of opinion, of course. You could have cut the tension in that room with a knife.
Darius – yes, I think Stallman would have balanced out the discussion more. And yes, RealPlayer adware is annoying! I don’t use RealPlayer because of that.
Just for the record, I love both proprietary and open source models equally. I am a .NET developer by career, but I also use MySQL, Firefox, Thunderbird, and OpenOffice.org every day.
Why don’t you watch the video first?
Have this idiots (and it’s a good word to use) heard of the open video and audio stuff? Hello, ogg, xvid, etc? Geez, at least do Real so that we can have an authentic support for the proprietary formats.
I was always told that these codecs ‘just work’ in Linux, though it seems that every time one of these articles show up with video files attached, you get a bunch of people on here bitching that they can’t view them. Well, too bad, so sad. I guess that’s the price you pay for Freedom, eh? As for me, I can pretty much view any video out on the web. So I guess using a propietary OS does have its advantages .. better to be locked in than locked out me thinks
I’ve been using OSS products for years now, the company that hired only believes in the path of the FOSS, in whole honesty I never had a problem with any software support for the past 5 years dealing with the product. There are a lot of folks out there on the net who maintain releases and ready to help anyone with questions. Some product developments do die out but almost immediately there is a replacement or an evolvement of the product with a newer approach and better solutions. Change could be hard on IT but it is necessary as the net and the uses mature.
My 2 cents.
P.S. In the video I observed a University Computer Science graduate vs a sales-IT fellow from a ????High School?
watching it right now….. no problems here, plays perfectly on my gentoo system
Throughout this discussion both the Real and Microsoft reps used the term “commercial” rather than “proprietary.” As if to say that open source software companies couldn’t be commercial. That doesn’t sound right to me.
Agreed. For some reason, folks tend to ignore this distinction.
Microsoft themselves have distributed partial and full open source. They use open source software from third parties in bundled software and support it commercially. To act that there isn’t commercial open source is as silly as arguing that there is no ‘gratis’ freeware.
Your other comments were spot on too. Thanks!
(Side note: It played fine for me under Linux in Kaffeine and Xine, btw. To be clear, the codecs that were used were closed source (I think?).)
I was channel surfing yesterday and when I hit the UW channel there was a guy messing with some C code. It was a show about CGI security. Pretty neat.
Kubuntu Hoary with home-compiled kmplayer (I don’t like Kaffeine).
This is a trick question because the answer isn’t listed.
False dillema or flamebait?
I listened and it was not very interesting. It was about what you would expect for a Microsoft sponsered talk on the subject. There were a lot of disingenuous comments from the Microsoft guy and a not very strong set of arguments from the guy they picked to represent open source.
It certainly did not inspire me to want to go on and listen to other talks from that site.
I notice that some people have commented about the lack of open source codecs. This was just one of many clues about the motives about the show. Look at the title and notice who in the presentation actually referred to open source adherents as having a religious motivation. It is easy to support open video standards. If they had ANY interest in doing so, they would have.
make the wrong comparision and you get the wrong answer. open source is not a business model it is a development model
They “just work” if you download the hacked proprietary codecs; in fact I’ve had better luck watching odd off codecs on my linux boxen than my windows box (because I can get all the codecs that exist, almost, in one spot instead of digging up off strange codecs). However, this isn’t some cheesey video made off [insert-cheap-camera X] by some family member, wierdo over the net, etc. It’s a “professional” video with a topic that one would think interests a lot of people who don’t like proprietary formats.
Some people, don’t feel they need to break some off-uninforced-probably_unconstitutional law just to watch a video (DMCA in this case?).
The point is that you use formats that make sense for your audience. And once again: They could at least post Real! Or here’s a thought, avoid the accursed brain-child of media companies and don’t use streaming video (just share a video file). That’d probably make all of us without incredible internet happy too! Even my University connection occasionally gets behind on streaming video; although I’d bet that 100% of those times are the fault of the other end or something between us.
ok, lets be realistic here….. it played fine for me on Mplayer, Xine, and Kaboodle but how often do you see a link to streaming video in .asx, that is just crap and it is totally intentional
heh…. didn’t realize i had no name lol
They “just work” if you download the hacked proprietary codecs; in fact I’ve had better luck watching odd off codecs on my linux boxen than my windows box (because I can get all the codecs that exist, almost, in one spot instead of digging up off strange codecs). However, this isn’t some cheesey video made off [insert-cheap-camera X] by some family member, wierdo over the net, etc. It’s a “professional” video with a topic that one would think interests a lot of people who don’t like proprietary formats.
Some people, don’t feel they need to break some off-uninforced-probably_unconstitutional law just to watch a video (DMCA in this case?).
So you’re saying that the reason why people in this thread couldn’t view the video is not because they didn’t know how to install the codecs, but because they refused to install them? Well, I guess if the only way to install these codecs in my OS of choice was to break the law, I probably wouldn’t do it either, so can’t hardly say I blame them.
” How is Microsoft and Apple better for the world now?
Or am I again speaking to an omniscient person?”
what the heck are you talking about.
What this whole OSS vs proprietary arguement comes down to is this: do you control your system or will MS (and others). In the last 10-15 years, computers have become part of almost everyday life. We bank on them, shop on them, do homework on them, pay our bills, order movies, hell even order pizza. In another 10 years, having a computer will be like having a refridgerator or stove. Everyone will basically need one. WHen that times comes, who do you want controlling everything? You or MS? Lets face it, MS’s only goal is to make money. I wouldn’t trust the federal government with controlling the IT infrastructure of the future, and we elected them fools. I sure as heck don’t want MS controlling it. Thats why we need OSS. I am not a zealot who thinks all closed software is bad. But the choice should be up to the end user to make. THere should be an OSS alternative out there.
TechGeek, while I agree that computers/OS will be in everything as time goes by, I can’t agree with all you say.
By what means to do you determine MS controls your computer? If a person is not very tech savvy (very light way of saying not a linux geek) then what control would they have over a linux box. If I don’t know how to work linux or change it or whatever, I have no control over it either. I am at the mercy of what those who create linux do.
A individual/society has some control over microsoft, as seen in court cases, but also in that people can buy MS stock, if MS makes a bad move, it will hurt them. If the creators of linux (linus, redhat, who ever) do something I don’t like, I don’t have much control there either, I can’t change it anymore then I can with MS or Apple.
Dealing with MS may be like dealing with a bad king at times, but when they have things running good, not much complaint. Dealing with linux is more like dealing with random peasants (and ones from some monty python sketch at that). I don’t have much trust in the linux camp either. Linux has many issues some of which are the lack of an iron fist keeping things together and inline, and has yet to and may never ditch the religious side of it.
I agree having a variety out there is good, and their is no reason it won’t happen. But to only think the grass is greener on the otherside (linux) or what we really need is a new Dictator, is pretty silly.
When I say OSS I don’t necessarily mean Linux. Linux may or may not make it mainstream like Windows has. My point is that the only way to truely be able to trust a platform, whether it be Linux or some other OS, is for there to be open readable source code. Companies who write proprietary code have it in their best interest to keep the source code secret, stifle innovation, control standards, and generally “not play well with others.” Imagine if Ford was the only company who was allowed to create automobiles. Good for Ford, bad for others. Same with software. We have almost let MS completely dominate the market by not insisting on competition. Or for another analogy, a palace is still a prison if your not allowed to leave your room. Might be pretty nice, but still a prison.
It’s a mix to be honest. Some people just don’t wanna mess with the codecs for various reasons, others don’t know they exist, and others may not be able to install them manually + few distributions install them for you.
I tried to watch it; it’s dreadfully boring… The guy from Real just bores you to tears because he’s a bad public speaker. So I stopped.
Anyway, the fact that the big speaker was from Real would make one think they’d use Real format to distribute it… Ok, not really, but the irony remains.
I understand it might not mean linux, but still it doesn’t change how I feel. Also your car analogy was very poor.
I care more about how good the product is, then I do the source code. Being able to see the source code or others being able to see it does not make me feel better about things. Personally I think having the source code out there is a danger since it makes it easy to find the flaws and attack the OS. Even if someone good finds a flaw and reports it to be fixed, everyone is still in danger cause a fix does nothing unless people have it. And even a responsible person may not be up to date.
Also when an OSS solution goes bad, who do you point the finger at?
MS may have got to the top through some questionable ways. But even still, it’s not their fault that no one has come out with a product that blows them away and causes them to loose their dominance. Apple is the only one who is even giving them a challenge. I think instead of complaining about MS, people should complain that no one is making a serious effort to come up with a viable solution. If no one does, it just validates where MS is and shows they got there on their own merit.
I was always told that these codecs ‘just work’ in Linux, though it seems that every time one of these articles show up with video files attached, you get a bunch of people on here bitching that they can’t view them. Well, too bad, so sad. I guess that’s the price you pay for Freedom, eh? As for me, I can pretty much view any video out on the web. So I guess using a propietary OS does have its advantages .. better to be locked in than locked out me thinks
Excellent analysis, very practical, and objective.
I wouldn’t call it either, although they are quite possible with Open Source. To me Open Source is like a scientific revolution. The programming power has moved out of the cubicals of big software farms and into… well everywhere there’s a keyboard and an internet connection. Free collaboration and peer review is all over the place in software engineering these days. It just so happens that this can captivate people (much like a religion would) and produce some great code that businesses can “use”.
Works for me on Gentoo with “mplayer -playlist [file]”. The real problem is everyone has weird ways of presenting the content on the web. Maybe today its some dynamic javascript, some .wtf playlist format or the new method of putting your playlist in a .exe. WTF people pick a standard way and use it.
Open Source can be great if it does what you need. If you are a web developer you very well may need to power that a program like Dreamweaver can give you. Even though you gotta pay alot more than an Open Source alternative, it could be worth it in the long run. If Dreamweaver is over kill and there is an Open Source alternative, go with Open Source.
I had no problem playing this or any .wmv files with kaffine after installing the codec. Here’s another satisfied Linux user.
“it’s not their fault that no one has come out with a product that blows them away and causes them to loose their dominance. Apple is the only one who is even giving them a challenge.”
The thing that’s great about linux and OSS is that it’s always improving. Linux has grown so much over the past years it’s incredible. I don’t think this argument is going to last much longer. I don’t know what country you come from, but proper english for “loose-ing” something is “lose” just one o. Sorry, that bugs me. So eventually Microsoft will LOSE dominance but they will never go away, they’ll simply turn to other products and services than operating systems. I bet they’re already seeking their next killer app, seeing how they’re developing every kind of software under the sun. They may as well wave the flag, especially if they proceed with Trusted Computing(TM). Everyone I know is looking at Mac’s or studying Linux, nobody is exactly dying to upgrade windows.
…
..they should have invited someone from RedHat, if they wanted a leveled field.
The way it was, they had in one hand a guy from MS whose only job is to prove how MS is superior to Linux, Open source and everything (through that seriously skewed site called “get the facts”) and at the other hand a guy from Real who apparently just read the book “Open Sources” and thought he was ready for a debate.
BTW, the MS dude said that only 110 ppl are responsible for 92% of the code checked in for Linux’s kernel, is that correct?
One more thing, the debate was headed against OSS from the beginning, with such tendencious title. Why the heck they put “religion” in it? Would they ever say “proprietary software – religion or viable business model”? I don’t think so.
As someone correctly pointed out, OSS is _not_ a biz model, it’s a development model. On top of that you use the biz model that you prefer.
…would have been a better guy to represent OSS, btw. Now THAT would be funny to watch, especially if someone from the audience brought Mono and .Net to the debate!
Someone made this comment earlier:
better to be locked in than locked out me thinks
This is the problem with the world, not just computers. Complacency with everything whether it rips away your freedom or not. I’m not talking about just Open-Source, but government and media control over your actions these days. Some people don’t see or don’t care about the problem because it “works for me”. Well, some day it won’t work for you anymore, but against you.
“Some people don’t see or don’t care about the problem because it “works for me”. Well, some day it won’t work for you anymore, but against you.”
Nvidia Drivers.