Red Hat confirmed on Aug. 3 that it would be delaying the release of the newest member of its desktop Linux family, Red Hat Global Desktop, because the company is seeking to provide certain multimedia codecs. Sources close to Red Hat said obtaining some of these codecs was dependent on Red Hat coming to an agreement with Microsoft.
It was pretty much a given Redhat would eventually have to deal with Microsoft for a desktop distribution. Redhat wants Windows media codecs no doubt. I think it is funny after using Fedora all these years and having to add in mp3 and media codecs with each release. maybe if the Redhat Desktop is cheap enough i will just buy it so I am protected by whatever deal they make with microsoft.
i hope it’s a mistake and redhat with NOT come to any agreement with micros$$oft cause they are shit and must die.
Edited 2007-08-05 12:37
YOU WERE THE CHOSEN ONE!!!
You were supposed to destroy the Bill not join him. Bring balance to the source, not leave it in darkness!
edit:sorry, but it had to be said.
Edited 2007-08-05 12:42
Sorry, but the chosen one just sold out. Red Hat finally came to their senses that Microsoft really controls the internet, because linux needs multimedia codecs,plugins from Microsoft to view certain internet content. this just downgraded fedora;without those multimedia codecs
fedora and other oss are not going anywhere.
slowly but surely Microsoft is winning another battle.
Edited 2007-08-05 13:24
“Because RED HAT needs multimedia codecs…”
Sorry, had to fix that for you…
Linux does not need MS’s codecs. Not if they’re not going to give a fair deal (and you know they’re not…)
While having codecs installed and enabled by default might be nice in a desktop distro, it wouldn’t be the first time (Linspire)
The community is a fickle mob. And it will turn on you in an instant. We’ve seen it happen to some degree with Linspire, Suse, etc.
Excuse me, but how is it caving it; Its an agreement for Red Hat to pay for Microsoft’s CODECS; they’ve sold their codecs to Fluendo, TurboLinux and numerous other third parties. This is hardly anything new.
Just as a side issue – if people are going to complain about proprietary CODECs, lets simultaneously slam RealPlayer and their codecs, Apple and their codecs, and Adobe and their stuff as well.
Edited 2007-08-05 17:50
“Just as a side issue – if people are going to complain about proprietary CODECs, lets simultaneously slam RealPlayer and their codecs, Apple and their codecs, and Adobe and their stuff as well. ”
Well you can’t slam RealPlayer….because well they actually have a killer player, that plays their propriety format on Linux, that is *vastly* different from lock-in.
How is that ‘vastly different’? Red Hat will be licencing Microsoft source code and create CODECs for Microsoft audio/video formats using gstreamer framework.
How is Red Hat purchasing the rights to Microsoft CODEC’s any different to RealPlayer and their proprietary CODECs? how is Red Hat signing an agreement as to allow Flash plugin to ship with the desktop out of the box any different than the arrangement with Microsoft?
You’ve failed to actually point out why – the way I see it, it has everything to do with a blind hatred of Microsoft and a deliberate ignorance to the issue at hand – you need compatibility with Microsoft to make it on the desktop. Apple and Sun have faced that reality and now its time for Linux vendors to do the same.
“because well they actually have a killer player, that plays their propriety format on Linux, that is *vastly* different from lock-in.”
That’s exactly what lock-in is.
But hey, with your logic:
you cant slam MS for lock-in since their tools work great on Windows.
I don’t think that there is a battle to win. It seems that it is all over, considering latest development in China and adoption of OfficeXML format as a standard.
Linux desktop revolution is probably not going to happen.
Considering home users, typical consumer expects to watch movies and listen music out of the box. She/he is not likely to go to Google and look for ‘DVDCSS’.
Home user expects to go to NVidia or ATI site, download the driver to desktop and click the icon to have everything working.
Consumer would want to play games reviewed in magazines and other publications.
Linux is constrained by patents and its own licenses.
Considering business users, MS group policy simplifies sysadmin tasks a lot. There are similar tools for Linux, but they are not used widely, so far.
Linux works good for Linux community, which seems to be about 3% of desktop users, and it does not seem to work for the rest.
Linux exists since 1991, and now is year 2007. That means that Linux is by no means new, and I don’t see why should one expect something spectacular to happen in the future.
I think that Red Hat should save their money and focus on developing another outstanding server product.
You know I’m not quite sure this is true for ALL
linux distros..doesn’t Mint Linux offer
Ubuntu with ALL codecs working out of the box?
My guess is they can get away with it because they
are based in Ireland not the USA where patents, or
the fear of patents apply.
Why uses a US distro? The reasons linux is stuck
at 3% ( I think it may actually be about 6%)
is (1) Install is hard ..too much geek knowledge required – don’t forget most users don’t install XP and
those that do install it as their first OS.
(2) too many choices of distributions though Ubuntu
is getting to be the de facto choice now
(3) Fear of computers
(4) Application for windows only..this is the weakest reason these days, as most home users don’t use photoshop
or other specialist applications and linux can
do most things the average desktop user wants like play
youtube.
However keep in mind that 5 years ago I thought I was the only person in Microsoft dominated Korea to use
linux. Now I keep getting surprised when my coworkers
tell me they use linux or have a friend who does.
Of course then there are the macbook users who use OS X.
Windows still dominates but it is clearly no longer
the only game in town.
1) There is already a DVD player for Linux – it is up to OEM vendors who ship Linux equipped machines to load on such niceties.
To me, by these vendors refusing to add value to their Linux equipped machines by bundling licenced CODECs and DVD player speaks volumes to their desire to kill Linux on the desktop.
So much potential there – and so little done by OEM’s to actually make it work.
2) End users *DO* run Photoshop – the consumer edition of it, Photoshop Elements which is a cut down edition which is bundled with almost every scanner, printer and camera out there.
GIMP 2.4 is addressing the immediate issues relating to the usability of it on *NIX – having fiddled around with it, along with GIMPshop, things are improving. But lets remember, those who maintain it are volunteers. If there is such a huge need for a Photoshop clone, wouldn’t it be best for vendors like Red Hat, Novell and Sun to actually dedicate some engineering resources to improving it.
As a side note, Adobe has already been approached – they’ve refused to make Photoshop available on Linux under any arrangement, even arrangements that would require no resource dedication on their part. So ultimately GIMP is the only viable application.
3) There are alot of Windows only applications, but things are changing – a good number are now web services rather than dedicated applications; I look at what my bank offers me – why would I need something like Quicken or MYOB?
Most people, however, do not have huge demands on applications; my brother is a prime example, surfs the web, watches movies and prepares documents (docs,spreadsheets,presentation).
Why would those vendors ship Linux desktops if they intend to kill it ? There is not much money in Linux desktops today anyway. I think that they feel uneasy about legal matters. Patent owners from one side and FSF with GPL violation issues from the other.
There are not many Linux OEMs.
Photoshop is not interesting to everyone.Many people find both, Photoshop and Gimp, too complex. I have found KolourPaint perfect. It is easy to use and works fine outside KDE.
Windows only applications are direct consequence of licensing. One can get a copy of Visual Studio and SQL Server for free, and develop a proprietary, closed source, application with no strings attached. On the other hand Qt is restricted for proprietary software. Quite a few developers are not sure what to think about LGPL, which is license of Gtk. That makes Windows a safe bet.
Pardon? patents have nothing to do with it – I don’t know where you got that subject from because it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
Dell is pricing their Ubuntu desktops $50 cheaper – instead of $50 cheaper, why not make it $20 cheaper and include CODEC support for WMA/WMV/ASF and DVD playback out of the box?
WMA/WMV/ASF/etc can be licenced off Fluendo/Microsoft and dvd player is provided already – there is a proprietary application which plays DVD’s and only available for OEM’s to purchase (such as Dell).
If These vendors truly wanted Linux to succeed, they would be certainly doing a lot more than what they’re doing now.
Well, codecs are distributed as dynamic libraries. They could be patented (algorithms), and they might link (since they are libraries) against some code that is under GPL (player perhaps). I don’t know, and I guess that OEM vendor knows even less. Maybe they just don’t want to risk.
Well, we have seen it happen before:
1.) Linux users want to buy (!) to get a Linux version for $GOODPROGRAM.
2.) Vendor says: No market, too costly, won’t do it.
3.) Some programmers get to work on a quick and dirty replacement program for $GOODPROGRAM.
4.) For a long time $GOODPROGRAM stays the better program, but the quick and dirty replacement becomes more polished and less dirty, gains in features and gets ported to Windows, until it reaches a maturity where 20, 30, 60, 80% of the people can use it to do the work they need to get done.
5.) The vendor of $GOODPROGRAM looses most of these customers when they buy a new computer, because you know: A price tag of zero $ is really hard to beat.
From this time on, the vendor of $GOODPROGRAM has to compete by staying technically well ahead of a gratis program, for a shrinking crowd of users who really need the extra features. Not a good place to put your business in.
The vendor could have saved himself the trouble of forcing people into writing a replacement program, simply by porting the stuff to other systems at a time when the replacement program is not yet started.
Yes, people don’t install operating systems today. Computer is like toaster, it is expected to work. People don’t distinguish hardware from software any more. Look at the cars, they have a lot of software these days. Nobody is trying to reinstall a car. Washing machines too.
One who supplies computers these days must think about consumer’s device, not about a collection of components.
“that Microsoft really controls the internet,”
You are hilariously inaccurate.
You won’t find that many upset free software advocates if Red Hat decides to license Microsoft media codecs. I’m not against licensing specific patents. I’m against broad cross-licensing agreements and covenants not to sue.
The patent system is severely, but not completely, broken. As long as free software vendors use the system as it was intended to be used, nobody gets hurt. We get the codecs we need to interoperate with Microsoft media formats, Microsoft gets duly compensated for their technology, and Red Hat takes one more step to reduce the legal uncertainties associated with Linux.
What we need to avoid is the use of the patent system to generate more FUD. Covenants and alliances stoke the flames of paranoia. Legitimately licensing specific patents adds credibility and chips away at gray areas. This is the proper way to construct the vaunted intellectual property bridge. We build it out of a concrete list of patents so there is absolutely no confusion.
Red Hat is an outstanding citizen of the free software community. It seems that not so many of us read the recent interview with Matt Szulik:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/18292
This is a guy that really understands the social aspects of free software. When the Novell deal first hit and Microsoft was suggesting that more Linux vendors would follow, I gave that some thought. Sure, they’d get Linspire and Xandros, maybe Mandriva, but Red Hat and Ubuntu wouldn’t sign such a counterproductive agreement.
It’s one thing to assert our right to distribute legitimate free software without any special agreements. But supporting proprietary formats and protocols is another story. If we want WMF, we have to license it. As long as we get a list of patents in exchange, we come out of the deal strengthened rather than weakened.
Edited 2007-08-05 20:07
How can you not be against licensing specific patents but opposed to broad cross-licensing? What’s the difference?
Patent licensing is effectively a covenant not to sue. But a covenant not to sue is not patent licensing.
The difference is that cross-licensing and covenant agreements don’t typically cover a defined set of patents. Instead, they offer vague descriptions of what kinds of patents are covered and which aren’t. Furthermore, the Microsoft covenants attempt to extend liability for patent infringement in new and troubling ways.
Read the section on “Foundry Products” in the recent set of Microsoft patent agreements and tell me if you have any reasonable idea what that means, particularly in the context of typical open source development models. It’s a fact pattern designed to allow Microsoft’s lawyers to argue that any piece of software not developed in-house by the particular Linux vendor may not be covered under the agreement. It’s a ploy to inject enough uncertainty so that litigation becomes too expensive.
The covenants are particularly nefarious because the parties are specifically playing on the fears of their customers as opposed to protecting themselves. No, they aren’t licensing patents. They aren’t even promising not to sue each other over a vague subset of patents as exercised in a vague subset of software. They’re promising not to sue each other’s customers over such matters. Big companies like Microsoft and Novell can afford to hash out their differences in court. But typical SMBs will do anything to reduce any perceived legal exposure, even if they have no idea what the protection specifically covers.
There’s no legal precedent in the U.S. or elsewhere (no pun intended) for an end-user of a software product being held liable for patents infringed in said product. It’s Microsoft and Novell that need to secure the right to distribute their software. They’re the ones that are liable for any patents infringed. These agreements are akin to insurance policies that vaguely cover events that have never been known to happen in the given context. Like if I was offered a policy that pays off if certain kinds of terrorist groups attack my suburban townhome.
If we can be made to fear liability for patents infringed in the software we legitimately license from well-known commercial vendors, then terrorist insurance for homeowners is right around the corner. And glacier insurance. You can’t be sure that it really isn’t global cooling. That’s what this is about. It isn’t about patents, it’s about insurance fraud. They’re trying promote fear by offering insurance against inconceivable events.
There’s no shortage of things to be afraid about in this world. So it’s shocking when so much attention is paid to the most improbable of circumstances. We have a finely-honed and deftly-nurtured case of catastrophilia. You know what happens after end-users start buying patent insurance? Patent holders finally start suing end-users. The tragedy of the patent covenants isn’t just that they promote uncertainty concerning Linux. They legitimize a new form of patent aggression against parties that have neither the legal resources nor the technical expertise to defend themselves.
I’ll take responsibility for the code that I distribute. But I use hundreds of free software packages, and I don’t think I should be expected to audit them for possible patent infringement. Even as a software developer, I don’t necessarily have the expertise to make informed decisions about the intellectual property content of software packages, regardless of source code availability. I’m not about to hire a patent lawyer for consult whenever I plan on installing or updating software on my systems. But does that mean that I should be compelled to insure myself?
Software patents are a minefield as it is. We have to limit liability to distributors. I don’t see how extending liability to end-users protects or encourages innovation in any way. Instead, it’s likely to make us fear innovation.
“Software patents are a minefield as it is. We have to limit liability to distributors. I don’t see how extending liability to end-users protects or encourages innovation in any way. Instead, it’s likely to make us fear innovation.”
I do completely agree with you on this. Please make an effort to get this wording across to your government.
They read it, even if you do not get an answer, enough of such well worded statements might make them decide against software patents. Big business is extremely loud about software patents, SMBs and individual programmers should start to get loud on this issue too.
Personally, I’m glad Red Hat has decided not to create a WinClone(TM)and gone with the idea of creating a Desktop OS that they feel gives more value for money than what Redmond has to offer.
Pretty cool IMO. Also, the idea that pre-installing this distro, with the help of Intel, on white box setups is another fantastic idea.
There’s also a thin client initiative associated with Global Desktop. With many-core systems becoming cost-effective and virtualization technologies rapidly improving, it becomes possible to deploy thin clients without severe limitations or prohibitive costs.
Today, IBM and HP are suggesting that splitting a fat client into a thin client plus a “blade PC” will save money and power, but it really doesn’t. You get enhanced manageability and security, but it comes at a price. By virtualizing the blade PCs on a many-core system, you can increase utilization to the point where it becomes cost-effective.
It should come as no surprise that Red Hat and Ubuntu are leading the way in corporate and institutional terminal services for the Linux platform. When the hardware enablement solidifies in 2009, a turnkey thin client architecture will be a killer way to posture against Windows 7.
Does anyone know anything about the pricing and availability of RHGD? Will it be available to the public at large?
Doesn’t RH say all the time they firmly believe in patent-free open-source software? Why do they surrender and want to include the MICROS~1 codecs? OGG and Teoma Vorbis works great, we just have to insist and push it more. Those who still want codecs to be able to read evil viceos can download them from the MPlayer web site. Please don’t start infecting RH software with the MICROS~1 codecs! Oh, and weren’t RH and MICROS~1 the two big enemies? Why should RH expect MICROS~1 to become friends now?
I wish it was that way. The problem is that only about 5% of all computers can open OGG files (mostly linux users). Content distributers want to distribute to the majority of the market so they use more popular codecs like Flash or Real or QuickTime. Those just make OGG etc. even less popular because the distro might ignore it due to it’s popularity and so on. MS’s WMP codecs are often offered but are rarely the sole codec available on a site because of Mac and Linux.
Ah please! Any software that deserves to be called a media player has some kind of automatic codec download facility.
But fact is, if you buy a computer with windows pre-installed, and you double-click on an .ogg file, you will NOT get a media player started. If you start a media player and open the .ogg file from there, it will not automatically download and install the codec, because the official Microsoft codec download server does not have it, and other servers are not set.
So for everyone who is unable to change their settings (which are probably 80% of the computer users), ogg is not playable.
Of course, they COULD set the servers correctly, and they COULD get .ogg access, but then they would be able to install Linux also, and MS would not have a monopoly any more. Unfortunately the world is not like that.
If we leave out those users who use only their default media player on Windows, then probably the most widespread player is Winamp and they’ve played Ogg Vorbis for ages.
For Ogg Theora it is tricky, but VLC Media Player is always a good choice for that and long list of other media/codecs on many platforms.
However in long run future may get interesting – seems that both Opera and Firefox developers are pushing for direct rendering of Ogg Theora video inside browser without any need of separate codecs. Ande they’re doing this together with updating the HTML standard with video-tag.
http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2007/03/05/1
To an end user functionality is what matters. If you want OGG supported everywhere you need to first make it so that most sites use it. But there is the chicke and the egg thing again… sorry… you have to support what is out there if you want adoption. You can get lots of commercial codecs for mp3 etc. @ fluendo.com. Flash, Java, mp3, quick time, et al. are required — or you will get complaints!
Microsoft does NOT CONTROL THE INTERNET! Nobody does. IMHO, Adobe Flash and RealPlayer are important, as well as QuickTime but usually, WMP is substitutable with Real on the web. I bet something fishy has been going on with RedHat. First the denounce SuSE for becoming a partner with MS and now they themselves are now partners. If they are looking for useful codecs for the web, they should be looking for the QuickTime codecs. Someone’s gone mad at RedHat. That must be it…
I dont get this. Most video on the web these days is embedded in Flash. We have a flash plugin. Quicktime stuff is already viewable with free codecs (i believe, isnt h.264 open?) I very rarely see video on the web in wmv form anymore. The only stuff is the DRM sites, but who the hell wants to use that anyway. RH would be much better off going to Apple to get a secure version of iTunes for Linux.
Why is everyone freaking out over RedHat dealing with Microsoft for codecs? Dealing fairly with Microsoft does not make RedHat a traitor or sellout or anything else. The only issue that made it so with the previous Linux distributors was the patent deals. RedHat has already stated quite openly, multiple times, that they won’t go there. It seems like some folks around here are too busy with the “Miroshit are teh dev1l” nonsense to even care that RedHat might be working on a suitable desktop distribution.
Cut a deal with fluendo and let them deal with MS that way redhat isnt seen as dealing directly with the devil
It might be just exactly what they’re doing.
The article is based on rumour, not fact.
that’s what they ought to do
That’s what they are doing. What is going to happen is something similar to what Ubuntu does with codec installs instead of directing you to the free but legally questionable plugins, Red Hat will suggest the fluendo licensed plugins. I think there was an interview somewhere stating as much. I think Ubuntu should think about doing the same. Yes free is nice, but I’d rather pay someone as long as I get a guarantee that they are going to work and not crap out on me.
This sounds like producing crappy codecs enhances the sale of licenses
We have many real-world examples, but this is not the world I’m supportnig.
The RH move is a smart, pragmatic business decision unfettered or mired in FOSS philosophy.
RH can see that Novell and Dell are making a play for the desktop market.
It is a good business decision to try to get in on the action. What choice does RH have? RH is smart to compete with Ubuntu for the desktop market.
I don’t use Red Hat products, but I’m glad that RH is staying competitive.
Edited 2007-08-05 17:06
I’m not really sure why everyone thinks that Redhat *has* to do business with Microsoft to get the codecs they need ie: windows media player.
Fluendo, the commercial company behind the gstreamer media framework paid a LOT of money to license these technologies from microsoft so long as they stayed closed source. You (and redhat) can buy them from fluendo. Instead of doing business with Microsoft, Redhat will likely buy the codecs from Fluendo:
https://shop.fluendo.com/
Fluendo paid a lot of money for the codecs that they make available for free.
The ones they charge for are payable by per-user royalty, because that’s the only way MS (and others) will make them available, and that necessitates a closed-source approach. And for that reason, Red Hat can probably negotiate a price directly without paying the Fluendo markup, which seems a bit extreme at roughly $25USD for wma/wmv. Microsoft publishes the royalty pricing for windows media video and audio decoding/encoding at $0.25 each with a maximum annual payment of $210,000 per year for the wma and $1,000,000 per year for the wmv. RH could easily afford that, and it would easily be cheaper than sourcing through Fluendo.
what is red hat doing? (leading enterprise linux distro)
linux has 90% desktop market share and it can play any internet content and microsoft windows is just a hobby OS. linux does not need anything from microsoft.
Edited 2007-08-06 10:24
The first Distro to make a deal with Blizzard for a Linux client (No winex/cedega) of World of Warcraft or Valve for Counter Strike will get hugely popular, fast. And they will be able to sell that distro for real money, to real customers (OEM).
Gamers are probably the most important group of people to target in this “war” against Microsoft world domination. They are young, they could care less about politics, and they are our future sysadmins and developers.