RealNetworks releases Linux content tool 78
Agnomen writes "RealNetworks has released a beta version of RealProducer Plus G2 content creation tool for Linux. According to their press release "The final release
of RealProducer Plus G2 for Compaq Tru64 UNIX operating system is immediately
available as is the beta release of RealProducer G2 for the Linux platform." Ok, so it's not oss, but it is good to see. "
Price? (Score:1)
Oh, yeah, I forgot. GPL will give them the provision to sell support, right? And what's from stopping a company like RedHat from undercutting their prices, since RedHat doesn't have to recuperate the development cost?
GPL is the best way to stop all commercial software development. RMS is a genious.
Slashdot is full of morons (Score:1)
Ok, I hearby return my slashdot bookmark...this site is for fanatics and armchair RMS's. You 'give me free or fuck off' people are going to do more damage to the reputation and viability of Linux than anything I've seen.
We all want Linux to succeed, but when company A releases their software for linux in any way that isn't totally free, you fanatics jump out of the bushes, foaming at the mouth about how this is somehow 'bad' for Linux and concoct fantasy stories about how commercial software will take control of Linux. Christ..I remember a Slashdot that was once full of informed and balanced people..whatever happened to all of them? They are all gone, replaced by you nutcase RMS wannabe's.
Here's a newsflash: you idiots DON'T REPRESENT THE OPINIONS OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF US LINUX USERS. Believe it or not there are many of us that use Linux in a professional sense and would very much like to see more commercial apps ported to Linux. What's more, there are those of us who would actually like to SELL some of our hard work, as opposed to giving it away on the unproven promise of somehow paying the bills through support and documentation alone.
You want to make free software? Go ahead! Have fun! Don't stop the rest of us from trying to make a living. Just because it's commercial doesn't mean we are trying to 'sieze control' Linux. Don't ruin it for the rest of us who want some commercial apps on Linux.
Yet again, Free as in Free Speech. (Score:1)
I never said that the Joe Blow Version of Quicken wouldn't be better than the real Quicken, but that most people out there want the real version. Hell, I would use the free one just fine.
Also, I would rather have people using Linux with Real Player and other commercial apps than doing the same under WINBLOWS!
Still waiting (Score:1)
Someone should start a project to write a free realstream player. It could actually be fast for a change!
real server (Score:1)
Not good to see... (Score:1)
Price? (Score:1)
I have nothing against Progressive Networks, but if their so ``progressive'', why don't they actually DO something progressive, like help fight the cause of freedom for software?
It's good to see more commercial products. (Score:1)
FREE and COMMERCIAL Software is the KEY to WD !! (Score:1)
So, in closing, if you like free software, GREAT - who doesn't? Don't knock somebody for wanting to make a profit on good software and stop calling them Software Whores. It only makes you look like a Goddamn Lowlife.
GPL vs software companies (Score:1)
And that is a good thing? (and are you saying that proprietary software is automatically "shoddy" by definition?)
Why should a company do R&D when they know, under the GPL, they would have to turn over that research over to the competition? Why would any company do it? So that they can sell support? Another company that didn't spend money on R&D could easily undercut them in price.
Do GPL fanatics believe money grows on trees? Yeah, I know. Free speech, not free beer, but it comes down to the same thing. Why buy the software when you can legally d/l for *free* on the internet, and under the GPL you will be able to for *free* (as in free beer).
And your analogy don't hold water. It would be more like this. A writer write the next great classic. Other people comes in (after he/she has spent years doing research, thinking, spending money on equipment), rewrites the novel, sell t-shirts, publish it... the original author doesn't see one dime. In the GPL world, this is the great new order. Bye, bye, intellectual property.
First read, then understand, then post (Score:1)
If you force all Linux applications to be open-sourced, the only applications that will ever be developed under Linux in the future will be those created by die-hard OSS developers. The major corporations who make millions and billions developing software for other operating systems will not give Linux a second glance.
These companies make their money from selling their software products. You can't expect them to all suddenly drop what they're doing, release the source code to their flagship products, and convert to a profit-from-support type of business model. It's not going to happen.
The fact that corporations and major commercial software developers are porting their applications (for free or for sale) under Linux is an excellent achievement for the OS. It means that growth will proceed, new minds will be brought into the Linux arena and the operating system will find its way into more and more environments.
Having closed-source, proprietary software applications will not hurt Linux by any means.
Stop wining, start developing... (Score:1)
Slashdot is full of morons (Score:1)
what are you talking about? (Score:1)
my take was that he just wanted to make clear that free != open
why should anyone own an idea - or the implementation to exploit an idea?
we are all one people - aren't we all working towards the same common goal?
obviously some people can't see beyond their pockets...
we have a place for them though, they can sell what they like.. if you want to package and market boxes of dung - feel free to do so.. just show us whats in the box before we buy it.
but i suppose that isn't a good analogy - it is more like selling air, which we can get our selves for free.. but giving it a different name and not saying what it really is... if they want to make $$$ they can just sell us rebreathers or breathing lessons...
charge someone based on your time and resources - which you give openly to someone. if you buy a rock, you know you bought a rock - you can disect it and determine that it is made from x,y,z minerals. if you pay for someones time you can watch what they do and see your money being spent on time. dont sell your idea unless you are willing to include the essence of the idea too (ie. the code)...
confused yet? me too... i will stop now...
There's no way to prevent it anyway, you dimwit. (Score:1)
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
Still no G2 player for Linux! (Score:1)
maybe not... (Score:1)
This is debatable. More software for Linux is great, provided that it is free (free speech, not free beer). More and more closed and proprietary software will only "Windows-ize" it.
RealNetworks can take their closed-source garbageware somewhere else as far as I'm concerned.
Player et al.. (Score:1)
Regardless, I would have liked to see a RealPlayer 5.0 with some bugfixes show up.. Right now, I'm getting "audio write error" messages all the time, requiring me to re-connect to the streams I'm watching.. It gets to be a real pain sometimes, since some sites seem to produce more of these errors somehow.. They're bugs that are in the Linux (and presumably UNIX) version, and they should have been fixed long ago...
I will give the Free Software hyper-advocates a few points here -- if RealPlayer was open-source, these bugs wouldn't be here (at least I believe that to be true). I wish there were better alternatives that were open-source, but I haven't seen many (MP3 is getting close - but the creators of the technology still want to make money off of everyone who creates MP3s.. There is no alternative to RealVideo on Linux, AFAIK).
If there are people that are knowlegeable about audio and video technology, I'd encourage them to make an open-source alternative. However, I don't know if there is a large enough group of those people to actually make anything.. Hard to say, I guess..
When Linux G2 ??? (Score:1)
Open standards not Open Source (Score:1)
Show me a GPL'd wordprocessor that even start to compare to their commercial brethren, and I'll switch.
Can't, eh?
And if free software is so important, where the hell is the free (GPL) browser? Didn't bother writing one as long as Netscape provided one for free (beerwise)? And no, Netscape doesn't count because it didn't *start* out as GPL product.
The key is open standards (open fileformat etc, open protocols etc). GPL is not a viable to alternative to companies. You, as a user, may choose to only use it, but you won't get the latest greatest.
Sorry? (Score:1)
$149.95 (Score:1)
Proprietary apps are good for free software. (Score:1)
Proprietary applications make it possible for people to do things with Linux RIGHT NOW which formerly they could only do on a proprietary OS. That means that it's easier to get people to switch from Windows to Linux, because they're giving up less and less functionality. Then, if somebody later comes up with a free alternative, there are a much larger number of people who might consider switching to it. That's _good_ for free software.
The free-software-only zealots believe one of two fallacies:
1) Someday everyone will, all at once, see that free software is the Way, and immediately discontinue the use of all proprietary software. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. If the Linux community pushes commercial software developers away in order to achieve "free software purity", they'll keep developing for Windows, and people will continue to have reasons to stick with a proprietary infrastructure.
2) That Linux is better off staying as a niche player for the use of the Free Software Priests. I _strongly_ disagree. I think that most of you would agree that a future computing environment based on free and/or open-source software _infrastructures_ is a lot more attractive than a future computing environment based on source which is locked up (and, in some cases, actually _lost_) in Redmond.
So I welcome the availability software from Real, Corel, IBM, Sybase, and whoever. I'll make my own choices as to what I actually _install_ on my system (which, of course, you can't do with Windows, e.g. MSIE), and I might decide to use free software over commercial software where good free software is available (I have both RealPlayer and x11amp on my system, and I end up listening to ShoutCast much more often than Real these days). But having more software options of _any_ kind on Linux is a good thing, because in the end they will lead to more people using Linux.
Commercial interests will never truly "take over" Linux, because of two things: 1) the GPL ensures that Linux code will always be available, and 2) you people who love free software exist.
Adam
Once again, please get a clue (Score:1)
The actual quote is:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
-- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
If you were to go into your local movie theatre today and yell "fire" in the middle of the show, people would give you an annoyed look, probably tell you to shut up, and maybe call the usher.
If you kept it up, you'd probably be thrown out.
This is because theatres are basically safe, fireproof structures. For the most part, you have little or nothing to fear when you step into a modern theatre.
Not so in 1919. In 1919, most theatres were built of wood, and stage sets and curtains were not fireproof. Theatre lighting was accomplished with open flames -- limelight and carbon arcs.
Do a web search on the Iroquois Theatre fire of 1903 for a good example
Theatre fires were the "airline crashes" of the day
People were very aware of theatre fires, and if someone yelled "fire", it was very likely that a panic would result, causing death, whether or not there actually was a fire. This is the context from which the quotation should be understood.
Holmes restriction on freedom of speech is more in line with the notion that you can't sneak up on someone who is peering into an open elevator shaft, scream in their ear, then claim "freedom of speech" when they involuntarily jump to their death out of fright.
My point is that the "yelling fire" exception only applies when the speech is likely to cause immediate physical harm or death by way of causing involuntary panic, and is false and malicious. NONE of this applies in any way whatsoever to the OSS arguments here, and I'd like to suggest that people stop trying to use this quote to support such arguments, because it simply does not apply.
- John
When Linux G2 ??? (Score:1)
Here is teh teext of their last reply a few days ago:
"Hi,
The File compression message that you are receiving refers to content which
was created for our G2 Player. Because the UNIX Player is uses the 5.0
Player codecs, your Player can not access that content. We are aware of
this problem and are working diligently to release a UNIX RealPlayer G2.
Please continue to check our website for new version.
I am sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you."
Thanks,
Rebecka LeBrun
RealNetworks
rlebrun@real.com