Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software Government Politics

Council of the EU Says "We Cannot Support Linux" 370

An anonymous reader writes "The Council of the EU has a streaming service so that we can watch its meetings — but the service can only be accessed by Mac or MS Windows users. This is because they employ WMV format for the videos. In the FAQ they express a really strange opinion about this: 'The live streaming media service of the Council of the European Union can be viewed on Microsoft Windows and Macintosh platforms. We cannot support Linux in a legal way. So the answer is: No support for Linux.' An online petition has been set up to create pressure to convince the EU council to change its service to one that is platform independent."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Council of the EU Says "We Cannot Support Linux"

Comments Filter:
  • Interpretation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DreadSpoon ( 653424 ) on Sunday December 31, 2006 @09:44PM (#17419348) Journal
    The "legal way" thing probably refers to the inability to provide a legal WMV player for Linux, not that it isn't legal for the EU to stream in another format. I don't think anyone there is trying to say that it's illegal to stream in a different format. Rather, they are saying that since WMV is what they use (for whatever reason - political, economic, or simply fiat), Linux users can't be supported.
  • by myrdos2 ( 989497 ) on Sunday December 31, 2006 @09:47PM (#17419370)
    There's always been a lot of FUD regarding Linux and legality, but this is absurd. Since when does producing media that can be viewed on a Linux machine violate the law? By this argument, that FAQ is illegal since a Linux user is able to read it. Unless they mean that in order to verify that the Linux service works, they would need to install Linux on one of their own systems, which they view as being illegal. But of course anyone knows all you have to do to be legal under Linux is: -buy a license from SCO -only use Novell's Suse Linux -buy a couple copies of Windows just in case Right? Right!?
  • Re:Ogg Theora? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by iamdrscience ( 541136 ) on Sunday December 31, 2006 @10:24PM (#17419522) Homepage
    Ogg Theora?
    No. The goal here is to make these videos accessible to as many people as possible, ideally, everyone. While switching to Ogg Theora would help Linux users out because they would be able to watch the video legally, it would ultimately make the videos far less accessible because for everyone not using Linux it's making it harder to watch the videos. Streaming WMV is not the best solution, but it's better than forcing everybody to use poorly supported software that's still in alpha.
  • by fishbowl ( 7759 ) on Sunday December 31, 2006 @10:51PM (#17419624)
    >Is there a legal WMV decoder for linux?

    I have one. I am sure it is legal for me to possess and use it. Why don't you cite the existence of an *illegal* one, and please specify, with the chapter and verse of law please, where and how it is illegal, and what, precisely, is it illegal to do with it?
  • Re:Ogg Theora? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by marcello_dl ( 667940 ) on Sunday December 31, 2006 @11:11PM (#17419712) Homepage Journal
    Seen decent resolution (1024x600) ogg-theora clips being decoded without a dropped frame on my humble 667mhz powerpc laptop. Ogg was conceived with streaming in mind. Server software runs well under linux. I see no reason why an organization like the friggin' EU can't set up a server for oggs... unless there's a lack of viewers. But then, don't come up with silly excuses.
  • by RealGrouchy ( 943109 ) on Sunday December 31, 2006 @11:15PM (#17419728)
    Many people are throwing around OS usage statistics, like from www.w3schools.com. These statistics are worldwide, and do not reflect the [potential] visitors to this geographically-specific site.

    Nevertheless, the number of people using Linux--and probably MacOS as well--pales in comparison to those who do not have a computer at all. (or hispeed internet, or a fast enough machine, etc.)

    Assuming the CotEU is required to provide streaing video for those without Windows or MacOS, then who's to say they shouldn't have to make it available to those without a computer at all?

    In my city (Ottawa, Canada), City Council meetings are open to the public. Anyone can go. Can't participate, but you can watch. You can also watch Council meetings on the local Cable channel (which means you have to purchase cable from Rogers--and this has been the case for decades without public outcry) You can also watch online. I think they use a RealMedia format.

    If you don't have a computer (or cable TV) at home, there are computer terminals at all the public library branches and at many community centres. Assuming the City has a right to make these meetings available for live viewing to all citizens (which, really, is covered by letting any citizen attend meetings in person) then they have done so by making these computer terminals available at local libraries. Not incidentally, this would also cover off the Linux-using population in the case of the CotEU.

    If your computer cannot access the stream (because it can't run on Linux, or is too old, or your internet connection isn't fast enough), then you can go to one of these places to view it. Or, if you want equality, the Council can stop streaming online, and everyone will be unable to watch it.

    - RG>
  • Oh the noes. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kewagi ( 1010125 ) on Sunday December 31, 2006 @11:55PM (#17419884) Homepage Journal
    This sounds like a typical middle-class IT fuckup - the task of creating a video streaming solution was assigned to the boss' cousin, who doesn't know there are operating systems besides Windows and always watches his porn as WMV streams, so the solution was clear for him. I'm far from being a mindless EU basher, but the quality controll still leaves a lot to be desired.
  • Re:Forget it (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ardor ( 673957 ) on Monday January 01, 2007 @12:26AM (#17420028)
    You forget that the geeks have nothing to say about this. This is a result of a patent and IP war. Video encoding is one of the most locked down areas of IT. So, no "gathering" of geeks will change anything.
  • by twitter ( 104583 ) on Monday January 01, 2007 @01:23AM (#17420214) Homepage Journal

    That's an unbelievably bizarre metaphor - equating operating system support as anything like racial discrimination.

    I can't understand why anyone would confuse freedom and civil liberties, can you? Is it worse to screw everyone for the benefit of a few, than it is to screw other races? Violating others is wrong, regardless of numbers.

    A government that forces non free software for popular participation is not interested in popular participation or does not mind having a third party as a mediator of that participation. It is perverse and wrong for governments to force people to chose between software freedom and participation in their culture. They would have more control if they were to broadcast on TV only. They will have more particpation if they chose a free format and force the third parties to make due. Microsoft is never going to behave and the problems will never end unless people quit using their shit.

  • by Azureflare ( 645778 ) on Monday January 01, 2007 @02:34AM (#17420408)
    I've been wondering the same thing, I've been reading this entire article thinking "What, don't people just use mplayerplugin?"

    I guess not very many people have heard of this. This makes me wonder. Are there other people that simply don't know about applications in linux and therefore think that linux isn't capable of some functionality when a very suitable app exists that does it?

    You know, I think linux needs a centralized application that says "Here's what you can do in linux" and allows a user to explore all the beta or mature projects that exist. That would be insanely useful for raising awareness of applications. Most distros do a good job with default installs but there's no way they can include everything that might be useful to everyone, and honestly the names of applications are so obscure and don't really related to it's functionality that users would have a hard time.

    There's always google and the Linux OSS equivalents to Windows programs, but I think an app that's part of the linux desktop would be really helpful.

  • by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Monday January 01, 2007 @04:42AM (#17420786)
    First they hammer microsoft for almost a billions of dollars in fines.

    Then they say it is is required to play the video.

  • Re:Ogg Theora? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01, 2007 @05:14AM (#17420896)
    They can, but no one have financed it yet. BBCs Dirac is another project that shows real promisse: http://dirac.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] and http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensource/projects/dirac/ [bbc.co.uk]

    The technology is there. It needs focus and financing to get real pollished.
  • by erlehmann ( 1045500 ) on Monday January 01, 2007 @05:21AM (#17420914)
    To whom it may concern:


    I am interested in politics - especially on the European level, because political decisions heavily influence the way we, citizens of the EU states, live. As have learnt through Slashdot, a news website [1], the Council of the EU has decided to offer a streaming media service.

    In my opinion, this is a very interesting service with great potential to provide citizens with more information to actual issues.

    Unfortunately, the stream is only avaiable in a proprietary format named Windows Media Video (WMV). In your frequently asked questions [2] you state that "[the] live streaming media service [...] supports [only] Internet Explorer 5 and higher, Netscape Navigator 6 and higher.", that "[the stream] can be viewed [only] on Microsoft Windows and Macintosh platforms." and "[you] cannot support Linux in a legal way.".

    As a user of free and open source software, this cought my attention. As a politically interested citizen, I would like to know why a proprietary (secret, probably patent-encumbered) format was chosen over an open video standard like Ogg Theora or XviD.

    Proprietary formats, like WMV, are vendor-specific: They prevent or make it difficult for others to implement the specification. In this specific case, one has to download Windows Media Player, which is not avaiable for GNU/Linux, the operating system I am using. In constrast, open standards enable everyone to implement them: They are a vendor-agnostic, royalty-free and allow for a wide range of implementations. This can be compared to the analogue radio program, which can be heard with any radio, not just radios from microsoft.

    As you can see, the use of a proprietary format is unfair, discriminatory behaviour against those who can not or do not want to use Microsoft Windows Media Player. The fact that this is done by a government entity makes it worse. In my opinion, gouvernment should not discriminate people - not even based on their choice of software. This is somehow a policital issue, but I doubt any reasonable citizen would oppose my position.

    Most likely it is technically possible to offer the streaming media service in an open format to enable everyone with a capable computer and a good internet connection to watch it. You could do this, for example, with the free and open source software VLC Media Player [3], which is avaiable for a wide range of operating systems free of charge. Another way to provide wide access to your media stream could be the use of a java applet like Cortado (also free and open source software) which eliminates the need for a media player.


    XXXX XXXX, a concerned citizen of the European Union


    [1] http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=0& mode=thread&commentsort=0&op=Change&sid=214392 [slashdot.org]
    [2] http://ceuweb.belbone.be/faq.php?lang=EN [belbone.be]
    [3] http://videolan.org/ [videolan.org]
    [4] http://www.flumotion.net/cortado/ [flumotion.net]
  • Re:Ogg Theora? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Monday January 01, 2007 @09:05AM (#17421482) Journal
    My biggest problem with this was the line 'it is impossible for us to legally support Linux.' This is clear FUD; it is only impossible in jurisdictions where software patents are legal. This is not the case in the EU, and having an EU body imply strongly that software patents are legally enforceable is a very, very bad thing.

    I pointed out in the letter I wrote to my MEP that people in France have reverse-engineered the format, so the only barrier to legally supporting it is belief that software patents are valid. I have some hope that she will address this, since she is a member of the FFII and has actively campaigned against software patents in the past.

Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.

Working...