Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Linux Software

Quicktime In Linux 354

Posted by Hemos
from the glory-glory-hallejuah dept.
brianmed writes "Yes, it works. Codeweavers has just announced their crossover plug-in. It enables users to access popular Windows files and plug-ins in Linux. Right now it is geared towards Quicktime, Shockwave, and Word viewers. Quicktime trailers play just fine. I also have pine setup to launch the the MS Word viewer on command. It is a happy day." Alright, time to start testing. I've also been talking with Jeremy White of Codeweavers: he's got a request for help, as well as an interesting piece on business models -- the Crossover is not entirely GPL. See the above for more information.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Quicktime In Linux

Comments Filter:
  • FINALY QT in linux

    oh yeah FP!

    • FINALY QT in linux

      Yeah, but let's face it, Quicktime is for the most part dead.

      If Apple had been serious about it, there *would* have been at least precompiled Linux binaries for it; my only guess is that Microsoft's financial interest in Apple may have helped to prevent that from happening.

      Of course, Windows Media Player's ASF support for Linux would be great, but I see no mention of it in the press release. Given that Microsoft went after Virtual Dub [virtualdub.org] for its support of ASF files (read the news archive):

      "If I remember correctly, my reverse engineering of the ASF file format structure took place after the DMCA was enacted but before the anti-reverse-engineering clause took effect, and between the filing and issuing dates for the Microsoft patent. I will have to look up the exact dates, but ASF functionality existed in VirtualDub long before the infamous V1.3c release that will seemingly roam the Internet for eternity. This is, unfortunately, the same ASF parser that ended up in the Linux avifile library in modified form -- so anyone using that library needs to be careful. Frankly, I'm amazed my parser ever worked at all, given how nasty it was."

      [sigh]

      Please join with me in wishing cancer on Mr. Gates.

  • Well, now I have two out of three of the major video codecs available... often, things only offer either Windows Media or Quicktime.

    Of course, what I'd really like would be native Flash authoring...
    • Of course, what I'd really like would be native Flash authoring...

      Oh, I'd kill for a native Dreamweaver... Macromedia has not shown much interest in Linux, unfortunately. Anyone know of a petition for this?

      Unlike some people, I have no problem using closed source software (I wouldn't know what to do with the source if I had it) - I'll just use whatever the best tool is, and Dreamweaver is IT.

  • That is great to hear ( I am being serious ). The only catch is that the most of the QuickTime trailers use Sorenson and I can't see any legal way of getting this working on Linux, unless Apple changes the licensing between them and Sorenson. Maybe its time to encourage the use of a non-Sorenson codec?
    • by ClayJar (126217) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @05:12PM (#2227107) Homepage
      You really should read the article before you post obviously stupid comments, but I'll forgive you of that, since I've done that myself (haven't we all). Anyway, to sum up the whole thing in one little line, CrossOver is a Wine-using thingy that lets you install the Windows version of the said plugins and use them as if they were Linux native Netscape plugins. (In other words, since you're using the Windows install of the Windows plugin, of course it works with Sorenson, and next time, click the link... it wasn't even slashdotted.)
  • Cool (Score:2, Funny)

    Linux is now a stronger than ever platform for watching porn.
  • And that can cause problems. The website says that the plugin costs $19.95. I understand the need to compensate developers for their work but charging for a plugin that is free (as in beer) on other platforms is not going to migrate people to Linux. This will be news when there are free plugins that install right and work just as well.
    • Sheesh! Can't people ever get enough? These people did a lot of work, and they deserve to be able to have a company for it. Just because you have a free operating system, that doesn't mean that you deserve everything for no cost.
      • No one's saying that the developers shouldn't be allowed to charge for their work. We're just saying that no one will pay for the work. How many popular formatscan you name that charge for their viewers?
        • I'd be willing to be a lot of people will pay for it. I know I will. It's handy to be able to view documents in Linux that previously were either a pain in the ass or impossible to view.


          Time is money, saving time to view this natively saves money.

        • We're just saying that no one will pay for the work.

          It's attitudes like that which will keep commercial developers away from Linux. I was thinking about buying the plugin, but this post made me go ahead and do it.

          Support Linux where it counts -- with cash.
    • by Shadowlore (10860) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @05:12PM (#2227106) Journal
      No, you cpmpletely misunderstand the plugin. How about reading the details first?

      The plugin provides the means of runningn other plugins. With the crossover plugin, you can then run most non-ActiveX browser plugins.

      This is not just a QT plugin. YOu can do many things, such as Shockwave, QT, and many other Windows-only browser plugins with this. In addition to these, you can also use the plugin for viewing various MS attachements, such as MSWord documents, and Excel spreadsheets.

      What makes this useful, is that MS is trying to get rid of all non-activeX plugins in their newer browser. There are many die-hard Windows fans that are quite upset with this. This provides another opportunity for the disgruntled to see there are options. As for the price, come on. This is not twenty bucks to use QuickTime. This is twenty bucks to use a wide variety of plugins.

      Given the lack of accurate information in the parent post, it is not an 'interesting' post anymore than other misinformation is interesting. It needs moderated back down.
      • Its not that $20 is a lot of money, and I'm not saying I'm not going to pay for the plugin, I'm not even saying its a bad idea. -- I'm saying that this doesn't need to be paraded around as another reason to go use Linux because Joe Luser doesn't understand what an Active X plugin is or that MS is taking non-Active X plugin's out. Joe Luser understands that he can get Quicktime etc. [insert your favorite non active X plugin here] for free on Windows. How long will it be before Apple and others release their plugins as Active X plugins?
      • Let the rationalizations begin. $20 isn't that much. Companies that contribute to free software products need to make money to survive. I can run a lot of plugins with this.

        Here's some food for thought. If this plugin is worth $20, then all the things you get in Windows are definately worth $100. Of course you may just not like Microsoft for one of many good reasons, and therefore are willing to pay elevated prices for all the little pieces that come with Windows. That's your choice. Or maybe you prefer to use all free software, that's also your choice.
    • It's true that it's not free (bummer there). But, another way to think of it is that, instead of paying $100+ for Windoze, you'd only be paying $20 for Linux ($0 distro + $20 for this).
  • I'm gonna get modded to hell for this, but who cares about Karma, anyways? :-)

    Exactly what are we (meaning the Linux community) doing when we reverse-engineer these kinds of procedures? I mean, we rant and rave and scream about how terrible proprietary formats are, about how they destroy innovation, about how they are held by Evil Corporations (tm)... And then we reverse-engineer the system calls until we have something that works for us.

    Shouldn't we, as a community, be concentrating our efforts on ways to make the computer world a better and happier place, rather than trying to emulate the big companies that are constantly oppressing the minority Operating Systems (Linux, BSD, etc)? These corporations are doing nothing but destroying our rights, and we emulate them.

    It's time for the free software "movement" to destroy these corporations and their powerful, vice-like grip on information (including Quicktime formats) and instead develop our own methods of showing video on operating systems that are not inferior *cough*Windows*cough*

    • The second anyone creates a popular, free video format, Windows will offer it. Don't Linux users deserve the same thing? And in any case, this isn't hurting the creaters of these formats financially - it's helping by providing more computers to view their content.

      I'm all for superior, innovative formats, but I'd like to be able to view older, crappier *cough*Windows*cough* formats as well.
    • I use Kword but I still need to be able to read .doc files. I use ogg vorbis but still need .mp3 for compatibility. I use Linux but need Win4lin to connect to a citrix application server.

      If Linux didn't support these proprietary formats, I couldn't have migrated over to it. Changes have to be made gradually. Free software has a much greater chance of winning if it is able to play on the same field as the competition. If you force people to make either/or choices by not supporting recognized standards (even if proprietary), you will forever shut out the majority of users from ever even trying free software.
    • Not really, I just see this as the free software community using "embrace and extend" against them. After all, Linux isn't going anywhere on the desktop until it runs what most people are used to, and that means quicktime, active x, and direct-x, .doc files, ect. You and I may not like some or even all of them, but that is what the majortiy of people are using. If we get them hooked on Linux first by letting them use this proprietary stuff in a free OS, then we can later introduce better things when Linux or insert-free-os-here has a large enough user base.

      First convince them to use Linux or whatever other os you want. THEN mop up the rest.
    • I'll explain exactly why this is good. Right now I can't watch these formats in Linux. Thanks to Codeweavers, a measly $20 will let me. That is good.

      Sure, this doesn't conform to some Stallmanist ideology, but people who adhere to ideology often totally lose sight of functionality. (eg. the whole GNU/Linux debate). Personally, I just want to watch the video files, and I don't care how this fits into some guy's utopian dreams.

      I think that the fundamental error in Stallmanism is it's strict adherence to law. True Marxists will violate laws that get in the way of their revolution. I call for a Neo-Stallmanism in which if we can't get codec's, we break into coroporate offices and steal them (or hack them, whatever's easier).

    • Well, I personally share your point of view. I always use the Free alternative, and when there is no Free alternative I don't buy (download) the product. It's not like I'm gonna die or anything just because I won't see a stupid movie trailer. But apparently there are people who *do* feel like they're gonna die if they won't see the stupid movie trailer, or people who feel that they should imitate everything under the sun in order to "make the migration path easier for users of other platforms", and they write stuff like this. I see nothing wrong with that. I get what I want, they get what they want, everybody's happy. It's not like anyone is opressed, on the contrary: when a Free alternative to something proprietary is released, it means less oppression, because there's more choice available. Unless, of course, the one who wrote the Free alternative gets thrown in jail over it. :-(
  • Damn! I was hoping for it to be free. I understand they have to make their money someway.

  • Reaction!

    he he, so IE6 drops quicktime, and Linux picks it up. good deal. i must say i'm a little surprised that Apple is better about making a Linux friendly quicktime viewer, especially in light of what asses MS have been over the quicktime plug-in....

    • Don't worry,IE6 lost the QT plug-in but is likely to have gained the QT active-x component.
    • by jchristopher (198929) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @05:10PM (#2227097)
      Apple needs Quicktime to run on Mac, because they want to sell their hardware to content developers.

      Apple also needs for Quicktime to run on Windows, because that's what the content consumers use.

      Apple does not care about Linux, because by comparison, very few of the content viewers use Linux.

      Now, as much as you and I would love for there to be a Quicktime app/plugin for Linux, I don't see that support coming from Apple.

      The only thing that will convince Apple to make Quicktime for Linux is a dramatic increase in the amount of desktop end-users running Linux. The best way you can make that happen is by increasing the usability and friendliness of Linux as a whole, by writing programs with clean GUIs and good documentation.

      To put it in other terms, Apple does not care about a platform where you have to know to type "rpm -iv quicktime_plugin.i386.rpm" to install it. That needs to change first! 99% of the computing population can not, and will not understand the command line!

    • o IE6 drops quicktime, and Linux picks it up. good deal. i must say i'm a little surprised that Apple is better about making a Linux friendly quicktime viewer, especially in light of what asses MS have been over the quicktime plug-in....

      If there isn't one already, there will soon be a QuickTime active x component for ie6. And the quicktime-for-linux bit isn't by apple, its by the people at codeweavers. It allows the apple quicktime plugin for windows to work in linux. There is no apple support for quicktime on linux.
  • ...that there's a Flash plugin for Mozilla on Linux already.
  • 20 bucks so I can watch Quicktime movies using a product that may or may not work with the next browser release?

    Pass.

    Closed video codecs = waste of time.

    Funny thing is if Quicktime was open it probably would've been the standard by now(can you say pdf, mp3).

    Too bad there isn't a video version of Ogg.
    • 1) It's not just for quicktime -- it's works with lots of different plugins.

      2) Quicktime is open. That's why xanim works. What isn't open is some of the codecs (like Sorenson).

    • Quoted from the "real dirt" page at codeweavers:
      (in fact, we have significantly aided the development of the ReAktivate project, which has the potential to make our product obsolete)

      At least they give the impression that they're honest guys. I mean, they're asking us to buy their product and they can't help but mention its about to get made obsolete by a free alternative program.
      • Seem fine to me. I mean there are plenty of people that want to be able to use QuickTime NOW, and paying 20 dollars isn't terribly much, even if it is for only 6 months or a year. Something that is interesting is if you think about software-for-hire - if people really do end up renting software, it may in fact make it much easier to move over to an open source version if one becomes available later.
  • Is this a good idea (Score:4, Interesting)

    by skrowl (100307) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @05:07PM (#2227077) Homepage
    If I can write my software in Windows (90+% of the market) and know it will eventually be able to work through emulation on other platforms (EVER write a native app for a platform other than windows?

    No flames / "Trolls!" / etc. This is a SERIOUS question from a professional (I get paid to do it!) Windows developer.
    • I dislike the idea. It's like windows developers telling mac users to "get VirtualPC."

      Bad idea, and it might not help much.
      Good question though.

    • This is why windows beat out OS/2...

      OS/2's claim to fame was that they could run windows apps faster than windows...

      All the apps developers look at that and say "hey, if I develop native OS/2, only OS/2 users can buy my app... but if I develop for windows, everyone can buy it"

      So everyone made windows apps... and the people buying the OS looked around and saw a billion windows apps and very few OS/2 apps and said "all these apps are 'for windows' so I might as well run windows just to be sure"

      It's always a problem with emulation... unless you can do it much cheaper, people will go with the original.

      Doug
  • The world is upside down. We now have to pay for something for Linux , when we could have it for free on Windows.
    • Not upside down at all. You've just not been around long enough. :-)



      At one point, the best way to get a great X server was to buy one. Always struck me as somewhat stupid to have to buy one when I'd be paying more money for the server than I did for the card (I once priced an X server, don't remember if it was Metro, Xi, or what) and it would have run me $150. The card in question was $50. Part of the price of that card was to help pay for the development of Windows drivers, of course.



      So get off your ass if you don't like it and start a Free project. This is based on WINE, after all.

  • ...but I think that this is one of the most important news items I've seen in some time. Getting QuickTime to the linux desktop is an incredible step towards making linux viable for the average joe's desktop OS.

    Its a shame that apple's "open source commitment" doesn't reach to the QuickTime team, or this would have happened a long time ago...
    • I think this is one of the most important news items I've seen in some time

      Unfortunately it's not free (it costs $20) and it doesn't include the Sorenson codec which means that it won't play most Quicktime clips.
  • The penguins bitch about the degradation of the web into "proprietary standards" like QuickTime and Shockwave, yet rejoice when these finally become available on Linux...

    At least stick to your guns. If you dislike these formats because they are proprietary, it shouldn't matter if they are available for whatever platform you use, because you don't want it.

    If you disliked these simply because they weren't penguin-friendly, then admit that, too...
    • which is why some real gnu distros like debian 'gnu/linux' will NOT ship this plugin, even if it was free. they'll leave the waffling to red hat, etc, etc.
    • The penguins bitch about the degredation of the web into "proprietary standards" like QuickTime and Shockwave, yet rejoice when these finally become available on Linux... At least stick to your guns. If you dislike these formats because they are proprietary, it shouldn't matter of the are available for whatever platform you use, because you don't want it. If you disliked them simply because they weren't penguin-friendly, then admit that, too...


      This is the fallacy of the 'other' -- assuming that all members of communities other than your own are similar to one another.

      Have you considered that there may be many 'species' of penguins? Among them, for example, may be both those that hate proprietary standards and those (a separate 'species') that simply don't like anything which doesn't support Linux. And there are more types of penguins, too. For example, those (myself included) which couldn't give less of a rat's ass about Quicktime one way or the other. And how about those 'VM Penguins' who have QuickTime running under NT in one window and Linux running under NT in another window?

      It takes all kinds. There's nothing wrong with allowing the 'Yay, Quicktime for Linux!' penguins to have a moment in the sun. Please don't assume, however, that all penguins are the same. Linux users are no more homogenous than Windows users, motorcyclists or ethnic minorities.
  • by rkent (73434) <rkent@noSPAM.post.harvard.edu> on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @05:14PM (#2227121)
    CrossOver is NOT:
    • quicktime for linux
    • flash for linux
    • Word for linux
    CrossOver IS a "netscape for linux" plugin that interfaces with a custom build of WINE [winehq.com], the Windows Emulator. Through this windows emulator, you may install and run the Quicktime (for Windows!), Flash (for windows!), and Word Reader (for Windows!) plugins. And CrossOver will handle the interaction for you, to make the windows VM appear in the appropriate window/panel for your browser of choice.

    Since it's a Netscape plugin, it will work with varying degrees of success with other browsers, like moz and konq. Remember, the Netscape plugin format is the one IE is abandoning, so there might not even be any plugins to use with CrossOver after a couple of years.

    That said, it's pretty damn neat. And I can see why they're charging for it - it's kind of a way to get *any* windows plugin to work as native plugins would under Linux. Of course the functionality isn't perfect, but I can definitely see business customers being interested if they have a need for things like that. Could be the essential migration tool for some shop...

  • It's sad that this plug-in isn't free software, but I wouldn't mind buying it because they do contribute a fair amount to the WINE project. It would be great if the FSF or some government organization would buy the code and GPL it.

    If the US government spent as much money in grants to write free software as they do fighting M$ the computer world would be a much happier place.
  • Now maybe we won't have to listen to Taco whine every time /. links to something Quicktime.. was the "well guess I can't watch that" starting to grate on anyone else? :)
  • ...unless they specifically mean they can play the Sorenson codec. There are Free programs out there already that can play AVI, ASF, etc files; some I know about are:

    Note that the avifile project has links to many other players...

    XAnim is (AFAIK) the oldest player. It supports some AVIs but (IIRC) not ASFs...

    Most of the ASF et. al. support comes from using the Windows binary codecs...

    • Sorry, I should have added they can play some quicktime movies (since that's the topic here). I've been able to play every QT movie I've encountered except Sorenson codec'd movies.
    • ...unless they specifically mean they can play the Sorenson codec.

      They can. Read the article.

      Most of the ASF et. al. support comes from using the Windows binary codecs...

      Until FFMPEG [sourceforge.net] came along, or more importantly, Xine 0.51 [sourceforge.net], which plays MSMPEG and DivX encoded AVIs just fine, natively. Not sure about ASFs - should be pretty triviual to do, but I haven't texted it yet.

      Oh, and if you want Xine with the ability to play the DVD movies you paid for, you should get the packages from here [freshrpms.net].
  • by m@ltese (18217) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @05:22PM (#2227170)
    A buddy of mine was recently hired onto the streaming quicktime team at apple. When I asked him about QT for linux, he told me the team had it working months ago, but Jobs killed it.

    Seems that quicktime is the feature that keeps Macs on the forefront of digital video production. To port it to linux would eat into Apple's niche market position.
    • I wrote native QT (using licensed portions of XAnim) and native QTVR support for OS/2 [slashdot.org] some years ago and have been on a jihad for 5 years to get Apple to wake up and port the QT client -- PLAYBACK ONLY -- to Linux. Just because it makes so damn much sense.

      If your friend has any direct line to Jobs at all, I wish he could get one simple message through.

      The enemy of your enemy is a BIG friend.

      QT + Linux would deal a major blow to Windows Media Format.

      When is Apple going to stop trying to out-microsoft Microsoft?

    • Seems that quicktime is the feature that keeps Macs on the forefront of digital video production. To port it to linux would eat into Apple's niche market position.

      Uhhh....does _anyone_ do professional digital video production on a linux box? (Hint: no.) Hell, QuickTime is out for Windows, yet Windows is not a very good platform for doing video. The vast majority of digital video is done on Avid machines or Macs running Final Cut. Doing professoinal digital video requires software and machines that meet very srtict specifications.

      True, Apple does keep some of its digital video software for the mac only. Howeer, Macromedia worked on Final Cut Pro for more than a year before selling it to Apple. Macromedia just couldn't get it to work on both platforms, so apple bought it and eliminated the windows side.

      Linux is very good at some things. However, it has a loooong way to go before it can chip away at Apple's client base.



      • Uhhh....does _anyone_ do professional digital video production on a linux box? (Hint: no.)


        Your point may be valid - I'm not aware of any professional studios using Linux for video editing. But I think you might be dismissing a trend. Linux is making headway in the film industry.


        Two examples are Pixar [zdnet.com](noteably Shrek) and Square [zdnet.com](Final Fantasy). Linux has been doing some heavy lifting in render farms for a while now. But note that its also showing up as workstations. Existing product lines and tools are being ported to Linux, and some production houses are generating their own internal tools.


        This might not be a solid example of Linux in video editing today - but it does show Linux could compete with Apple for the same niche markets in the future.

      • I've done all my video editing on Windows boxes. In the age of ultra-ATA and software disk striping, it is pretty trivial to put together a hardware solution for DV.

        I'll admit that there are a lot of people using Mac based systems, especially with Media 100 and uncompressed video, but there are probably more people (especially at the "wedding/event videographer" DV level) using PCs today, because the PC solution is cheaper.

        Check out DV 411 [dv411.com] for examples of DV level NLE systems.
  • Personally, I would like to congratulate the guys on a job well done. I think the implications of what these guys have done have yet to be seen.

    What I would suggest is that people look past what some consider to be the "limited" aspect of what has been completed, and imagine what can be accomplished with what they have learned.

    Yep, I'll buy a copy. It won't be the first "non-open" software I've run on my linux box, and if they continue on the path they've chosen, hell, I'd like to help them!
  • SWEET (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ulwarth (458420) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @05:51PM (#2227295) Homepage
    This is EXACTLY the sort of thing that Linux needs right now. Funny to think that with all the awesome software we have (Apache, KDE, the Gimp, Linux itself...) the thing we need the most right now is a lame little viewer for some proprietary media formats. But it's true.

    I have no problem at all paying for software like this. Especially since they have priced it quite reasonably.

    Now, let's hope it actually _works_ and isn't just marketing hype surrounding a shoddy product. :)
  • My experience with the various video formats on Windows boxes suggest that QT for Windows is intentionally crippled by the folks at Apple to help sell more Apple hardware.

    QT files (like the Mario 128 demo I downloaded from IGN) on my HDD constantly lagged and skipped on my old 233 MMX machine with 128 MB of RAM and a Diamond Stealth III (while RealMedia and mpeg files did fine). I assumed that Apple's QT player was bloatware and required something a bit more robust to play well. However, if I'm still having the same lagging/skipping problems with a Pentium 4 1.3 GHz, 256 MB of RAM, and a GeForce board, will I ever have good enough hardware? I know the Pentium 4 isn't the best-designed chip under the sun, but this is ridiculous! Especially when other video formats work just fine on comparativley ancient hardware.

    And of course this problem is only worsened by sites like IGN that offer media excluslively as QT files. (And then IGN expects me to pay money for their premium content?)

    Go ahead, mod me down as flamebait, but I don't even want QT software touching my Windows installs. Why would I want it running under Linux?
    • by flashms010 (465056) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @10:03PM (#2228138)
      I recall when when QT first came to windows.

      Just after MS ripped off key Quicktime code from a 3rd party consultant (litigated, settled), it emerged that Quicktime for Windows was facing unusual, suspicious performance and compatibility problems sourced in the Windows OS itself. I believe that MS's shenanigans with QT were brought up again during the MS monopoly trial.

      Apple conscientiously produces good software, so its problems on Windows weren't due necessarily from bad coding. The whole situation brings to mind how MS used incompatibilities to crush DR-DOS (and IBM to crush a chip maker before that). Of course, shortly after all this, the windows Mediaplayer made its debut.

      So, going by this particular conspiracy theory, you bought into MS's crap hook, line, and sinker. Remember, Apple owns a massive chunk of hollywood because of the quality of its tools. On the one hand, MS has a good reason for helping you overlook this core fact.

      On the other hand, Apple has to work overtime to produce cool new products because so many people hate the very idea of Apple's existence: they won't release substandard software if they can help it.
  • I just purchased the crossover plugin, and here are my first thoughs with it: (testing with Netscape & Mozilla)

    Installer: Very cool - makes it way easier to get the plugins.

    Quicktime: Quicktime installed fine, but the opening video I played had no sound.
    following attempts with opening a .mov file on my system with browsers led to:

    Netscape: .mov file played correctly, and in line
    Mozilla: Tried to launch Xanim
    Gnome (nautilus): launches to Xanim

    Shockwave: Shockwave installer had to be downloaded, but it's install went fine
    Netscape: every file I have tried to use has worked to at least some degree. some things the sound only produces a crackle - but this could be my audio driver I suppose
    Mozilla: only aboul a 1/4 of th eflash files Ihave tried have worked. Some sites cannot detect tha mozilla has the plugin installed.

    Word: Word viewer installed fine, though it didthrow an error, saying the plugin wasn't detected.
    Netscape: Files loaded fine (Note, if file has a space in it's name, you need to escape it, or it will take you to netscape's search site) Note: the file was not viewed in line
    Mozilla: Didn't pick up the mime type, and so just displayed a normal dialog for running a file it does not recognize
    Gnome: Files launched to the word viewer fine

    Excel: Excel viewer installed fine, though it didthrow an error, saying the plugin wasn't detected.
    Netscape: Files loaded fine (Note, if file has a space in it's name, you need to escape it, or it will take you to netscape's search site) Note: the file was not viewed in line
    Mozilla: Didn't pick up the mime type, and so just displayed a normal dialog for running a file it does not recognize
    Gnome: Files launched to the excel viewer fine

    Note, the Excel & Word viewers did not show up in mozilla when one does an About:Plugin

    Final judgement: This works pretty well in Netscape, but needs alot of work for Mozilla. this is to be expected from the release notes. For me, the word and excel viewers are well worth the $20 - and the rest is fun to play with

    Devon Jones
  • by jfunk (33224) <jfunk@roadrunner.nf.net> on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @07:08PM (#2227619) Homepage
    I just bought and downloaded it and noticed the license text:

    YOU REALLY WANT TO READ THIS, ESPECIALLY THE PART ABOUT YOUR FIRST BORN

    CHILD...


    ...License text... seems fair...

    OKAY, WE WERE JUST KIDDING. THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE ABOUT YOUR FIRST BORN

    CHILD. BUT YOU REALLY SHOULD READ THESE THINGS, YOU KNOW.


    Just thought I'd share that...
  • I just downloaded the plug-in and found this at the top of the EULA:

    YOU REALLY WANT TO READ THIS, ESPECIALLY THE PART ABOUT YOUR FIRST BORN CHILD...


    And then a friendly notice:

    If you don't like this EULA:

    a) Let us know, we'd appreciate the feedback
    b) Stop right now, and ask for a refund. We'll cheerfully do so.

  • Plugger (Score:3, Informative)

    by Darth Maul (19860) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @07:35PM (#2227703) Homepage

    Try this:

    http://fredrik.hubbe.net/plugger.html

    Multimedia plugin for Linux which can handle Quicktime, MPEG, MP2, AVI, SGI-movie, Tiff, DL, IFF-anim, MIDI, Soundtracker, AU, WAV and Commodore 64 audio files.

    I'm using it in Mozilla 0.9.3 and it works quite well. That, and the flash plugin that is available here:

    http://www.macromedia.com/

    I'm all set with Mozilla under Linux: Java plugin, Flash plugin, Quicktime, etc...
  • the Crossover is not entirely GPL.

    "Quicktime is not, repeat, not now called GNU/Quicktime. And related services are not called GNU/MS-Word, or GNU/Netscape. Thank you.

  • The two proprietary components of CrossOver are our installation utility, which is of no general value, and

    If it's of no value the why not open it? I mean it seems rather daft to limit your costumer base to those who are willing to run closed code in super user mode. What does it do? It could install spyware or give my browser the yellow links for all I know.

    I care a lot less about the program that runs in normal user mode.

  • Proprietary formats are bad: they restrict fair use rights unreasonably, and they mean that data simply becomes inaccessible in a few years, when the companies that created those formats have moved on to the next thing or gone out of business. Giving companies that kind of control over content threatens the foundations of our academic, social, and political institutions.

    Using the kinds of workarounds CodeWeavers is making available only perpetuates such formats. You should instead ask web sites and content providers to use open, documented formats. Even if the open formats are encumbered by patents (like MPEG), that is still a better deal than using something proprietary; patents eventually expire, but undocumented proprietary formats never become open, they become obsolete and forgotten.

    Besides, don't fool yourself for a moment: Microsoft and Apple will only allow this sort of thing to go on if they see it as being either useless or in their advantage. Otherwise, they have plenty of legal and technical means for stopping it.

What the scientists have in their briefcases is terrifying. -- Nikita Khruschev

Working...