Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
TurboLinux Businesses Media Movies

Commercial DVD Software Comes to Linux 416

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the years-too-late dept.
timekillerj writes "Turbolinux launched a new version of it's Linux distribution today. The key feature is the first commercial DVD player, provided by Cyberlink. PowerDVD for Linux supports menu navigation, Dolby Digital sound, subtitles, and more."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Commercial DVD Software Comes to Linux

Comments Filter:
  • commercial? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fodi (452415) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @11:32AM (#9661013)
    I think I'd prefer non-commercial software, please...
  • Re:commercial? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dollargonzo (519030) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @11:34AM (#9661024) Homepage
    both xine and mplayer already play DVDs (althought mplayer doesn't support dvd menus yet). i think the inclusion of powerDVD was to counter the claim by some linux using DeCSS defenders that "well, we don't have a single legal way to play DVDs..."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 10, 2004 @11:34AM (#9661026)
    Cyberlink PowerDVD is a large, steaming pile of offal. I rely on Xine, which is thousands of times more functional.

    Having said that, I am glad Cyberlink bothered with a Linux version of their software. No matter how crappy the product (as far as one anonymous poster goes), committing your coders to a porting effort like this takes guts.
  • Re:commercial? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 10, 2004 @11:36AM (#9661039)
    Or do you really think you'd go in and tinker with the code and make it better?

    You could have it ignore things like the "No fast forwarding" flag pretty easily, or disable Macrovision so it can work through your A/V setup (e.g. TV out through a VCR to your TV).
  • Good and bad news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by teutonic_leech (596265) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @11:40AM (#9661059)
    Well, judging from the first few comments, this is a good thing and a bad thing. A good thing because a commercial company is bothering to support Linux in the first place - forget about the quality of the player (e.g. lack of DeCSS, etc.) but focus on the statement this makes. But it's of course a bad thing as well because this might be the beginning of a trend of having commercial software being stuffed down our throats with each distro. But you know guys - you can't have it both ways: Either Linux remains a 'geek OS' or we'll have to deal with the Macromedia's and RealPlayer's of this world. Always be careful what you wish for ;-)
  • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 10, 2004 @11:42AM (#9661068)
    69.00 dollars? No source code?

    Plonk!
  • Re:eh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JeffTL (667728) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @11:45AM (#9661086)
    In plain English, that's Samba.
  • by goldspider (445116) <ardrake79NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday July 10, 2004 @11:51AM (#9661118) Homepage
    A few weeks ago, the head of the (evil, of course) MPAA learned that there was no legal way for Linux users to watch movies on their computers. Now we have one.

    So are Slashdotters going to thank the MPAA for addressing one of the Linux community's concerns? Nope, they're going to piss and moan about what's wrong with this particular piece of software.

    I'd submit that this is a big reason why software companies don't want to embrace the Linux market. No matter how good the software they produce is, Linux users aren't going to be happy unless it's free (speech) and free (beer).

  • Re:commercial? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WindBourne (631190) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @11:57AM (#9661151) Journal
    Why not have choice? Personally, I am happy to see this. Now, we will have to improve the non-proprietary to beat it (if that is not already the case).
  • by nwbvt (768631) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @11:59AM (#9661160)
    Can I just get the DVD software from CyberLink? I can't find a thing on their site on Linux PowerDVD. I don't really want a new OS, though I wouldn't mind having the legal DVD player.
  • by Azureflare (645778) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @12:01PM (#9661174)
    Last time I checked, Flash and realplayer didn't cost any money.... But I know what you mean, it's not free as in speech. (Don't forget the Helix community, they've got a very nice alternative to realplayer going).

    BTW you probably will be able to get linux from major distros that comes without commercial software. Mandrake has a normal version, and also a Powerpack version (and others as well), and the main difference is that the powerpack comes with commercial software, and the normal version doesn't. If you don't want the commercial software, then buy the normal one (or download the free download edition).

    I'm not sure how other distros handle this, because I've never used another distro. Yeah, I know, I'm not an official geek unless I've tried at least 5 distros... But I got mandrake working, ok? I don't have much free time. If it's not broken, don't fix it, right?

    At any rate, I don't think that we will lose the possibility of having a geek OS; we'll just have choices for what type of linux we want.

    That's what's so great about linux, IMO. You can pay more to get an easy to use linux, or pay less if you don't have much money and can figure it out, or like to have the challenge.

  • by Morgaine (4316) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @12:05PM (#9661197)
    Linux users aren't going to be happy unless it's free (speech) and free (beer).

    You're making no sense. Linux users don't want everything free, they just don't want to pay twice over.

    I bought my DVDs, with hard-earned cash, and they most definitely weren't free. I'll be blowed if I'm going to pay again, just to be "allowed" to play them on my own computer.
  • by stealth.c (724419) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @12:09PM (#9661222)
    I've used PowerDVD on Windows. I hate its interface, it is feature-impaired, and unstable. With Xine + libdvd*, I have SO MANY MORE FUNCTIONS. I can take screenshots of a movie without getting just a black screen; I can navigate the film in any direction and speed, and I can use key commands for just about all of that. It's faster, too, and far easier to acquire. Sorry CyberLink. This is far too little; way too late. I wouldn't condone purchasing a commercial DVD player anyway.

    They're trying to show support for Linux, but for some reason I still see them and most other proprietary software vendors as ignorant, crapware-distributing bastards. We don't want/need anything from people like CyberLink. They are wasting their time on a product that WILL fail--and probably make the "Linux market" look non-existant.

    Perhaps the most important thing is that DVD drives that come with PowerDVD will probably have the Windows AND Linux version. In such a case, it looks to me like another baby step in getting the support of hardware manufacturers.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 10, 2004 @12:11PM (#9661235)
    KDE 3.2 has not been localized for Japanese yet, and that's where 75% of their customers are based.
  • Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fweeky (41046) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @12:22PM (#9661285) Homepage
    They wouldn't get licensed with such features. They don't ship with them on Windows, why do you expect them to do so on Linux?

    Don't worry, I'm sure someone will come up with a small layer between your DVD drive and any software which silently strips region codes, PUO's (Prohibited User Operations) and CSS.
  • by m1a1 (622864) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @12:27PM (#9661306)
    Most people don't buy their DVD software anyways, well, not directly at least. They get it from the OEM when they order a PC or DVD drive.

    Cyberlink is (IMO) trying to position itself as the only choice for legitimate dvd software for those OEMs now offering Linux PCs. If they find this move profitable it could encourage other companies to produce linux software as well.
  • Way Too Late. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CherniyVolk (513591) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @12:31PM (#9661323)

    Once upon a time, a gallant InterVideo boasted a proposition to release LinDVD. LinDVD, being a port of their WinDVD software for Linux, during a time when the legalities were clouded and MPAA stomped through the land.

    If there was a time, to justify a commerical DVD player for the OpenSource community, InterVideo dropped the ball years ago. Why buy PowerDVD? Some might take this and use it as an example, right or wrong, to prove a point of how inefficient, slow, backwards and ignorant todays management techniques are. I firmly believe Xine is just as good as any of the highest priced DVD players for Windows/Mac. Why isn't it? It navigates DVD menus, it plays the movies well. For such a software package, that's it everything else will just sit infront of the movie and be annoying, like some child in the back seat asking "are we there yet?" over and over again.

    All the money companies spend. It's a waste, they spend billions trying to keep up with social trends, billions trying to predict market progress, all down the toilet.
  • by sloanster (213766) * <ringfanNO@SPAMmainphrame.com> on Saturday July 10, 2004 @12:38PM (#9661354) Journal
    If you really think it's such a bad thing to have to pay for a commercial dvd player.

    No, you're totally missing the point here. All the linux users I know can and do pay, gladly, for good stuff. What we aren't eager to is to pay for a closed source program that's not as good as the open source ones we already have...

    I haven't seen this DVD software yet, and I'll reserve judgment about it until I see it in action - but, as I'd have to switch to turbo linux in order to use it, the chances are slim that I'll see it in action any time soon.
  • by sparrow_hawk (552508) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @12:54PM (#9661426)
    *Cough*CrossoverOffice [codeweavers.com]*Cough*...
  • by dont_think_twice (731805) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @12:59PM (#9661446) Homepage
    Two things you will never hear a company executive say:

    1. Well, we could make a ton of money if we sold programX for linux, but the people on slashdot will complain, so lets not bother.

    2. Well, there is no way we can make money by selling programX for linux, but the people on slashdot will be happy, so lets go ahead and do it

    Software companies will embrace the market when it is in their financial interests to do so. That is what companies do. No amount of complaining either way by gnu/linux users is going to change that.

    Now, a question: how many people have actually bought DVD software for Windows? I would guess approximately 10. For everyone else, it came bundled with either a computer, or a DVD drive they bought. There fact that there is a commercial DVD player for gnu/linux now is great news for those who want to sell gnu/linux computers. Now they can just bundle the PowerDVD, pay the company that makes it 5 bucks, and not have to worrry about making sure mplayer or xine is properly set up to play DVD's (which can be a pain).
  • by raistphrk (203742) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @01:31PM (#9661579)
    The wide availability of free open source software has spoiled a lot of us. I mean...when it comes down to it, I don't LIKE to pay for software, because I don't have a lot of money. However, if I see a product that I like, and also works well, I don't mind paying for it.

    Case in point: I use FreeBSD, and I have a SBLive 5.1 sound card, with a SPDIF output. If I were in Windows, Creative's drivers allow me to use the SPDIF output without any trouble. However, FreeBSD's stock pcm driver, while adequate, doesn't support SPDIF output on the 4-STABLE kernel tree. I routinely had to switch between analog and digital output for sound.

    I'd used oss in Linux a while back, so I downloaded the FreeBSD build and gave it a whirl. The trial copy worked great, so I bought a license.

    Granted, I didn't want to spend any money, but it did exactly what I wanted it to do, and some. So I consider that a worthwhile investment.

    I think it's understandable to have reservations about paying money for software owned by Big Evil Corporations(tm), because you don't want to feed the beast. However, when it comes to development on open source and free open source platforms, if the developers aren't getting paid, new features aren't going to be appearing magically. Having software that's free (in terms of beer and speech) may mean that you don't have to pay MONEY for it, but you still should be contributing something.

    For my part, I can't write code for crap. I've made several attempts to learn C, but they generally result in disaster. Since I can't contribute patches back to developers, I don't mind buying boxed copies of the software, or books, to help pay for development.
  • by zogger (617870) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @01:36PM (#9661602) Homepage Journal
    Nope, they will pay for stuff-hardware, tangible stuff, same as anyone else. And the linux coders will give it back 10 fold over to the hardware vendors by doing their work for them if they would just open it up a scosh. And the linux users who aren't coders will submit bug reports, and also pay for the hardware.

    Saying linux users won't pay for anything is not true, they don't want to pay for intangibles,they think "owning" an intangible thought is nuts, and counter productive and bad for business and society, so they have developed and offer a new way to do things. They are willing to trade back and contribute actual effort to the hardware vendors as long as they stop being dicks about it. The ball is in the hardware vendors court, along with the "obscene profits from intangible copies" lobby, who need to get a clue or three as well.

    You would have a valid point if the linux "movement" wasn't offering anything back, but they are, in spades, and they keep getting shat upon and told they are cheap, when they are the most giving and sharing folks out there. They keep going "HERE, take all this free stuff we developed, all we ask is access to a few devices specs, and make it legal to make them work better FOR YOU AND FOR US". And that is supposed to prove that "linux" is greedy? huh? Is that really so much for them to ask?

    Noppe, try another argument, because that dog surely don't hunt.

  • Re:commercial? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jubii (315611) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @01:56PM (#9661696) Homepage
    I think I'd prefer non-commercial software, please...
    At the risk of offending some, I must say that this kind of setiment is one thing that's hurting Linux growth. How can we expect software developers to make software for Linux, when we can't assure them that they'll be able to make any money?? And you may ask.. "why do we need commercial software developers anyway?" Because we want more "Joe Sixpack" types to switch to Linux. If you're average user can't go to the store and buy a program for Linux, they're going to find an OS where they can. And right now, there is pretty much no commercial software market in Linux. I've also heard the chicken and egg problem.... to get brand name apps on Linux you need the users, but to get the users you need the brand name apps. Well here's a start, support the commercial software on Linux... even if you don't like commercial apps, do it because you hate Microsoft, and maybe then commercial developers will see that it's worth their time (and money) to port Brand X to Linux.
  • Re:commercial? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 10, 2004 @02:03PM (#9661730)
    Reverse engineering codecs/encryption methods without paying royalties is just as bad as software piracy.

    Well, that statement can safely be discounted - it's an attempt at proof by assertion. Kindly provide some support for your claim.

    (Let us note in passing that, historically, reverse-engineering without paying royalties has been a spur to growth in the software industry. Oh, what a terrible thing!)
  • OS Requirements (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phalse phace (454635) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @02:12PM (#9661776)
    Anyone else notice the OS requirements? Seems like bloated software to me.

    Operating System hardware requirements:

    PC/AT Compatible hardware
    CPU: Pentium III, 1.0Ghz or greater recommended
    Memory: 512MB recommended
    Hard Drive: IDE / SCSI HDD (5GB available space (recommended)
    Video Card: VGA or greater
    Mouse: USB, PS/2 mouse
    Misc: 3.5" floppy drive, CD-ROM drive (IDE ATAPI/SCSI), Ethernet card

    Looks like my old PIII @ 500 Mhz and 512MB RAM might not be able to run this.
  • by dnaumov (453672) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @02:14PM (#9661792)
    "# of useful proprietary apps on Linux: still zero"

    I wonder what that makes Oracle...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 10, 2004 @02:25PM (#9661860)
    I use Gentoo GNU/Linux, but on PPC. I'm guessing I still don't have a legal way of playing DVDs on Linux.
  • Re:commercial? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by aristotle-dude (626586) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @03:16PM (#9662165)
    *Whoosh* - the sound of what I said going over your head.

    I happen to be an inhouse developer. Please don't talk down to me. Many open source projects may claim to be meritocracies but there is a lot of ego driven decision making and brown nosing going around.

    I was not talking about Open source projects involving infrastructure such as Apache or mysql but rather application and utility development which I feel should remain in the hands of closed source developers who bother to hire usability experts to make user friendly interfaces and help to de-scope unneeded features which clutter up the interface. Most open source application software is a pain to use and quite uninspired as they try to emulate MS Office to closely.

    Open source has it's place in fighting entrenchment of proprietary infrastructure and closed standards but fighting against Microsoft's competitors on the application front only solidifies the position of MS on the desktop.

    You want to use Gimp or Open Office? Fine but don't discourage closed source developers from writing software for linux.

    PS. I'm quite proud of the fact that I work for a private company that receives no hand outs from other companies.

  • Re:commercial? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jobsagoodun (669748) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @03:25PM (#9662213)
    DeCSS is illegal period. This isn't a patent issue with CSS. It's industry trade secret protection.

    To be a trade secret, doesn't something have to be secret?
  • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nmk (781777) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @03:46PM (#9662334)
    I think its a good thing that more commercial software is starting to become availible on Linux. Who cares if it doesn't have source code. I think one of the reasons companies are reluctant to release applications on Linux is that perception that all Linux apps have to be free and have source code included. Linux may be open source, but that doesn't mean all Linux apps have to be. If Linux users actually start paying for software, and stop bitching about source code, you might actually see some major titles being ported.
  • by mrchaotica (681592) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @04:57PM (#9662698)
    Your "DVD-ROM" drive does not entitle you to play DVD "VIDEO".
    What about the copy of PowerDVD (for windows) that came with it?
  • Re:Yes...But... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 10, 2004 @06:58PM (#9663243)
    Apparently, he knows more than you [tomshardware.com]
  • Re:commercial? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 11, 2004 @09:24AM (#9665835)
    I don't know if these people complaining are rich kids with trust funds who have never worked a day in their life or pizza delivery guys who are bitter because they could not afford college. I grew up poor and I had to work hard to get where I am today.

    Well... some of those people may simply be complaining about their fair use of purchased items.

    For example, what if your car had to be serviced by the manufacturer's mechanic? The company made the car posssible, added their technology, so only the company can access your car's systems???

    I can imagine the scene... a young man tries to sell his tricked-out car, only to find that the car is Honda's intellectual property, and he is a criminal for modifying it and 'gasp' trying to redistribute it!!!!! Now his brain is in violation of the law because he is not permitted to understand the inner workings of the engine, as that technology is Honda's too!

news: gotcha

Working...